4 Bloodsports ============= This section will contain the most common topics that arise with respect to British bloodsports and related issues, including all types of hunting with hounds and touching on others both legal and illegal. This will be the section most biased in towards the AR viewpoint taking the form where the claims of the bloodsport fraternity are stated and are followed by common AR answers. It is being done this way as the maintainer is an ARA and thus it is unreasonable for them to speak on behalf and answer for the opponents of animal rights. Note on sources: *[LACS] signifies information from the League Against Cruel Sport's website *[PL] signifies the quote came from Paul Latham of the BFSS and the relevant pieces were taken from the transcript of a conversation held on 'Out There News IRC' regarding foxhunting 24 July 1997 *The quotes from Baroness Mallalieu are all from her speach at the Countryside Rally 4.1 Foxhunting -------------- "The unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable." Oscar Wilde, 1890 4.1.0 Background ---------------- This is not intended to bt an introduction to foxhunting itself, so some basic knowledge is assumed. Foxhunting on u.p.a is generally refering to the activity were people on horseback follow a pack of trained hounds around the countryside in persuit of a fox. Or as Oscar Wilde put it "the unspeakable in persuit of the uneatable". This is not the only form of foxhunting - some others are considered in section 4.1.4 - but it has the highest profile and the largest amount of writing devoted to it on this newsgroup. Staghunting (section 4.4) is often put in with foxhunting as many of the issues overlap. So who are the hunters? The hunt consists of the huntmaster who is in charge of the day, the whippers-in who help the huntmaster and the mounted followers (the 'field'). There are also supporters who pay a 'cap' to follow the hunt around in cars and watch. Terrier men are employees of the hunt and generally have the most contact with the fox itself. 4.1.0.1 The Polls ----------------- This is a collection of polls on the issue of hunting with hounds. a)Mori poll, Nov 1997 1500 people in rural areas questioned: 57% supported Foster's Bill 32% opposed it b)Mori poll, Nov 1997 1,873 people questioned between 21 and 24 Nov 2/3 of voters backed the bill 4/5 of Labour supporters, 2/3 of Lib Dem supporters and 1/2 of Tory voters als o backed the bill. 3/5 believed that Labour should make more time for the bill. c)Telephone Poll conducted between 17-28 Oct 1997 Question: Michael Foster MP has introduced a bill to ban hunting with dogs. Would you support/oppose this bill becoming law in Britain? Is that strongly or tend to support/oppose? All figures in % except figures in () which are numbers of respondents Scotland North East Yorks/Humberside (273) (280) (268) Strongly support 58 57 60 Tend to support 17 17 17 Neither support nor oppose 6 4 8 Tend to oppose 6 8 5 Strongly oppose 8 11 7 Don't know/no opinion 5 2 2 Support 75 74 77 Oppose 14 20 12 North West Wales West Midlands (275) (273) (271) Strongly support 59 53 50 Tend to support 16 23 19 Neither support nor oppose 7 8 7 Tend to oppose 7 5 9 Strongly oppose 6 9 11 Don't know/no opinion 5 1 4 Support 75 77 68 Oppose 14 20 12 East Mids East Anglia South West (279) (280) (276) Strongly support 53 61 56 Tend to support 20 13 12 Neither support nor oppose 6 8 6 Tend to oppose 9 9 10 Strongly oppose 8 5 12 Don't know/no opinion 4 5 4 Support 73 74 68 Oppose 18 14 22 South East London Total (252) (283) (3010) Strongly support 55 57 56 Tend to support 19 15 17 Neither support nor oppose 8 11 7 Tend to oppose 8 9 8 Strongly oppose 8 3 8 Don't know/no opinion 2 5 4 Support 74 71 73 Oppose 16 13 16 d) The Daily Telegraph, Sunday 17 Aug 1997 (Thanks to Chris Wright) Town (%) Country (%) Do you approve/disapprove of hunting foxes with hounds? Approve 14 21 Disapprove 84 77 Don't Know/Won't Say 2 2 Do you agree/disagree that fox hunting with dogs is cruel? Agree 83 78 Disagree 15 20 Don't Know/Won't Say 2 2 Would you approve/disapprove if Parliament were to make a law forbidding fox hunting? Approve 65 59 Disapprove 33 38 Don't Know/Won't Say 2 2 Would you approve/disapprove if Parliament were to make a law forbidding stag hunting? Approve 64 61 Disapprove 33 36 Don't Know/Won't Say 4 3 Would you approve/disapprove if Parliament were to make a law forbidding hare coursing? Approve 61 57 Disapprove 32 36 Don't Know/Won't Say 7 7 Would you approve/disapprove if Parliament were to make a law forbidding game shooting? Approve 55 54 Disapprove 42 43 Don't Know/Won't Say 3 4 Would you approve/disapprove if Parliament were to make a law forbidding fishing? Approve 30 25 Disapprove 65 70 Don't Know/Won't Say 5 5 Field (%) Blood (%) Which of the following comes closer to how you describe hunting with hounds? Is it a "field" sport 21 77 or a "blood" sport? [Source: Gallup telephone interviews between July 31 and Aug 6th. 1023 adults surveyed, 582 considered themselves "town" people, 397 "country"people and the rest neither!] e)Following the Countryside Rally a poll was held on Talk Radio (late night with no organisation being told in advance) and the result was that 82% of 4000 callers opposed hunting. [Thanks to Kevin Wright] f)Mori poll on behalf of IFAW, July 1997 [Daily Telegraph, 10 July 1997] 72% of rural people said the interest of the animals should come before those of the hunt 68% of rural people said hunters should not take part in event where animals are killed 56% of rural people do not believe the hunter's conservation arguements 73% of rural people support a ban on deer hunting 1000 people were interviewed in a variety of rural subcatagories of which 373 called themselves 'country dwellers' g)NOP poll, Mar 1996: only 48% of farmers dont support hunting. [LACS] h)Gallop poll, Nov 1991: 77% of rural dwellers oppose hunting. [LACS] i)NOP poll 1991: 69% of Conservative voters opposed hunting. [LACS] **************************************************************************** In 1958 a poll said that 63% of people were for a ban on hunting. Since then the figure has never fallen below 50% and from the 70's it hasnt fallen below 60% **************************************************************************** j) Mori Poll Feb 1998: 73% of the anglers and 68% of the horse-riders support Foster's Bill [source: Birmingham Post] 4.1.0.2 The BFSS postcard campaign ---------------------------------- From late Winter 1996 to March 1997 the BFSS ran a pro-hunt postcard campaign targeting Tony Blair. Robin Hanbury-Tenison of the BFSS claimed that over a million postcards were sent; other BFSS representatives gave figures that varied from half a million (Janet George in Feb 1997), up to 750,000; with 32,000 going to Elliot Morley alone. Labour's own statement is that 43,020 of the pre-printed postcards were recieved, half containing no senders address, and a quarter delivered unstamped in packages. One box alone contained 1,000 unstamped postcards. 3,700 came from hare coursing supporters. Early 1995 the House of Commons post office stated that MPs had recieved approx half a million letters and postcards to support the Wild Animals (Protection) Bill of John McFall along with a petition containing a million signatures supporting the anti-hunt bill. [LACS 21 March 1997] 4.1.0.3 Hunt Statistics ----------------------- Thanks to Tim Bonner for the following details NUMBER OF PACKS (1997-98 Season) 184 foxhound packs recognised by the Masters of Fox Hounds Association 20 harrier packs recognised by the AMHB - four of these also registered with MFHA 3 deer packs recognised by the Masters of Deer Hounds Association 71 beagle packs recognised by the Association of Masters of Harriers & Beagles 9 basset packs recognised by the Masters of Basset Hounds Association 19 mink packs recognised by the Masters of Mink Hounds Association 9 fell packs (foxhunting on foot) recognised by/affiliated to Central Comm. of Fell Packs TOTAL = 311 recognised packs of quarry hounds There are also many 'gun packs', mainly in Wales and Scotland EMPLOYMENT (foxhunting only) In hunt kennels 910 full-time job equivalents Goods & services for hunt kennels 351 full-time job equivalents Stable staff of hunt subscibers 6,100 full-time job equivalents Livery services for hunt subscribers 982 full-time job equivalents Clothing for hunt followers 195 full-time job equivalents Goods & services for horses 5,657 full-time job equivalents Capital spending (vehicles, buildings, horses) 1,700 full-time job equivalents TOTAL EMPLOYMENT = 15,895 full-time job equivalents (1) Over 70% of these jobs are in rural areas (1) TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURE specific to foxhunting is £243.1 million (1) PARTICIPATION: 215,500 people hunted or followed hounds in 1996 (2) 20,000 hounds in total participate in around 22,220 hunting fixtures each year (3). In Great Britain, 68,000 horses go hunting 4. Over 35,000 of these are used only/primarily forhunting (4). Registered foxhound packs kill approximately 16,000 foxes each year (MFHA/CCFP 94/95, 95/96). The proportion of total fox cull taken using hounds and/or terriers varies among three research regions from 10% to 70% 5 On average a foxhound weighs 70-80 pounds. This is 4-5 times the weight of a typical fox. The average length of chase is 17 minutes (Dr. David MacDonald, Oxford University) In 1995, Hunts disposed of over 0.4 million carcasses. This service was provided to farmers either for free, or at a nominal charge (2) Sources - corresponding to numbers in parenthesis: 1 Produce Studies for Countryside Alliance, 1998 2 Cobham Resource Consultants for Standing Conference on Countryside Sports, 1997 3 BFSS Campaign for Hunting survey, 1996 4 Produce Studies for British Equestrian Trade Association, 1996 5 Game Conservancy Rural Fox Management Project 95-97 Note, that these figures are pro-hunt in origin. 4.1.1 Some Common References ---------------------------- This section will contain some of the subjects that appear repeatedly in various threads and will hopefully provide the nessecary background for those who havent being following the issues. 4.1.1.1 Michael Foster's Bill ----------------------------- Michael Fosters bill, the subject of so much controversy and hope has failed to get through parliment, despite 411 MP voting for it (a majority of 260). Dispite having a huge mandate and popular support, it was not given government time and was timed out by filibustering tactics from tory opponents. In the end Foster had to withdraw it to prevent other worthy bills such as the Puppy Farm, Fireworks, Minicab and Energy Efficiency Bills being also timed out as a knock on result. Never the less he has said that he is not giving up the fight altogether. [Press Association; Times; Mirror; Guardian; Independent; BBC Online; especially 3-4th July 98] There have been many rumours that the government would allow it to be added on to a government sponsored bill later on. This is however still very unknown, and Jack Straw has said that he would not let it happen with the most likely one, his crime and justice legislation. The future of the attempts to get fox hunting banned remains very unclear, though it is likely that another attempt will be made before the next election. The most recent rumour is that the government are considering local council referendums to decide the issue, though most animal rights campaigner are cynically seeing this as a half-hearted appeasement tactic to stall any bad publicity or back bench rebellions over the issue. The rumoured proposals would allow local councils to ban hunting in their area following a vote by the people on the issue. However, several logistical problems would have to be overcome as well, such as the issue of hunt territory. In the seventies, several councils did ban foxhunting but they were overturned in the courts. Many senior ministers are said to be in favour of this plan. It is possible for another bill to ban hunting altogether. [Mirror 18 May 98; Times June 13 1998] 4.1.1.2 Pro-Hunt Gatherings --------------------------- 4.1.1.2.1 Countryside Rally (2 July 1997) -------------------------------------- [PL] Paul Latham of the BFSS: "As for the rally it was a bugger to organise" Organised by the Countryside Alliance, from January of 1997, with the nominal aim of bringing to the government and national attention of the important issures surrounding the countryside, it was dominated totally by the hunting issue. The organisers say that this was due to the appearance of Foster's bill, while anti hunt people take the view that this was their intention all along given the nature of the organisers and their subsequent history of merging with the BFSS. The Rally itself attracted 100,000 people, for whom entertainment was laid on. Hunters from the US and France also attended and the event was well publicised in all the hunting and shooting magazines along with the general country and farming one. Added publicity was gained by a series of walks to London by hunt supporters. Among the speaches were threats to poison the water supplies if hunting was banned (attributed to Auberon Waugh). One speaker, David Jones, said that it was going to be the last peaceful rally. One anti-hunt protestor had his jaw broken. 4.1.1.2.2 Countryside March (1 March 1998) ------------------------------------------ Organised intially on the same principles as the Countryside Rally, the March attracted between 150,000 and 250,000 people to London to voice their concern about rural issues. The CA claim the figure of 284,500 It was organised by the Countryside Alliance and other groups, initially to show support for hunting but in the end that issue became totally fudged as other concerns such as the right to roam, rural communities and developement took the headlines. It can not be claimed that everyone there was an opponent of Fosters bill or that they supported bloodsports though the organisers did make attempt to promote that issue. LACS had representatives attending it. It was also the issue of much controversy as to what it actually represented with claims that vested interests had highjacked it and questions being posed about the origins of the half million pounds spent on it - foreign lobbies and tycoons haveing contributed funds to it. In section d below a survey by MORI on the day gives only 40% of those there went because of foxhunting. Meanwhile there are also the allegations that workers on estates and farm labours being forced to go. Included here at the end is a letter from the `The Countryman's Weekly' February 1998 advocation that people should be blackmailed in to going. It was successful in that it seems to have gained concessions from the Government though not apparently on foxhunting. [source: BBC news service; Times 28 February to 3 March 1998; Telegraph 28 February to 3 March1998; Independant 1 & 2 March 1998; Guardian 1 & 2 March 1998] A MORI poll at the march revealed the following statistics a) On the political parties they supported 79 per cent Conservative 10 per cent Liberal Democrat 7 per cent Labour b) On were they came from 15 per cent said they lived in the middle of town or city 5 per cent said they lived in a suburb 22 per cent said they lived on the edge of the countryside c) Social Profile Percentages The march Rural average National average --------------------------------------------------- AB | 47 26 22 C1 | 35 19 27 C2 | 13 31 23 DE | 5 25 29 --------------------------------------------------- d)Also, Marchers were asked by MORI "What is the one main reason you are taking part in the march?": Hunting 40 per cent Rights of rural people 28 per cent Farming issues generally 9 per cent Greenbelt housing 6 per cent Conservation 4 per cent Beef or BSE issues 3 per cent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >From 'The Countryman's Weekly' February 1998 Fieldsports people who miss the March should be shamed DEAR EDITOR: I feel I must write to you regarding the March. The fieldsports people who say they are unable to attend the March should be shamed, black-mailed or whatever it takes to get them there. In my opinion, only the sick and infirm have a genuine reason not to attend. It seems to me that if these apathetic people don't go to London, they don't really care about their sport. Our organisation has many members. One in particular springs to mind - a 78-year-old gentleman who fought for his country in the Second World War and who will be in London to fight this war. He feels that he will not manage all of the March, but is determined to do his best. I strongly believe that the people without a valid reason for not attending, should be omitted from all future invitation sporting days as well as all social events associated with our great traditions. It is the firm belief of the Shildon and District Countryside Movement that if we do not fight our corner and show solidarity in numbers, we will lose this battle, and probably the war! MICHAEL S. HARDY, Chairman of the Shildon and District Countryside Movement in Durham 4.1.1.3 Anti-Hunt March (2 Aug 1997) ------------------------------------ Organised by the National Anti-Hunt Campaign in response to the Countryside Rally. It attracted around 6,000 people (police claim 3,500); starting in Hyde Park it marched to Trafalgar Square were the speaches were held. There was also an exhibition and stall by various AR and AW organisations. There was no violence reported though there was a hiatus as people protested outside a McDonalds on route. The day suffered heavily from criticism from LACS (who attracted several thousand supporters to their sanctuary at Barrowsdown the same day) and the RSPCA but people were well suprised and pleased at the turnout considering. 4.1.1.4 James Barrington and the Wildlife Network ------------------------------------------------ This man started out as a sab, joined LACS and rose to become it's head. Without the permission of his committee he undertook secret negotiations with the BFSS. When this was discovered he was immediately expelled in 1995. He then set up his own organisation, the Wildlife Network with the aim of mediating between both sides. However, he is despised by all involved in protesting against hunting as a turncoat totally in the pocket of the BFSS. He made an attempt to become head of the RSPCA but was defeated. Richard Course was expelled from LACS in the 80's for doing the same thing. In Aug 1997 former LACS chairman, Mark Davies, and the former regional representative for Bedfordshire, Steve Watson, were expelled for 'compromise talks withe the pro-hunt lobby'. Both are now leading figures in the Wildlife Network. The Wildlife Network says that banning hunting will cause more suffering to foxes through other forms of killing such as snaring, poisoning and shooting; that hunting must be reformed and kept for the welfare of the fox. AR people oppose this on the grounds that foxhunting only accounts for 2% of foxes killed every year and most of the rest already die by the methods given. So that their arguement that hunting benefits foxes is pretty much redundant. 4.1.1.5 The Bateson Report and the National Trust ------------------------------------------------- The National Trust had long been under pressure from its members was well as AR and AW group for the fact that it continued to allow staghunting on its land. To respond to its critics it commissioned a report by Savage on deer management which concluded that hunting had a role to play in controlling deer numbers. However, this didnt cover the crucial aspects of deer welfare with respect to culling techniques, one of which was hunting with hounds. For this a second report was commissioned by Patrick Bateson of Cambridge University. This report, hotly contested by the BFSS though held up by a peer review, found that hunting with hounds did cause deer more stress and suffering than they would from other methods of culling. As a result the NT immediately suspended all hunting on it's land were it could. Several deer hunts have been affected as a result and one, the Quantocks, pretty badly. There have been legal challenges to the ban but to date the NT have the upper hand, though there is one challenge still going through. Also following on from the Bateson report the Forestry Commission have also banned stag hunting on their land. Following the hunting ban there have been mysterious fires on Exmoor which have been connected with similiar threats of arson supposedly made by hunt supporters. [source: Wildlife Guardian] The Bateson report has been rewriten for a scientific publication having passed a peer review [source: Janet George]. A comments on its implications can be found in section 6.5 reproduced from Nature magazine and a letter on the issue from Bateson and Wise published in The Veterinary Record. 4.1.1.5.1 "Friends of the National Trust"/FONT ---------------------------------------------- This is a group run by the surgeon Charles Collins and his wife Joanne from their home. It is a pro-hunt pressure group set up in light of the National Trust's ban on stag hunting to have it over turned. They claim to have recruited 1,000 disaffected Trust members. It is supported by the likes of Lord Carrington, Sir Angus Stirling, until recently director general of the trust, and the actor Jeremy Irons. These three are backing George Lopes (Devon landowner and on the executive of the Country Landowners Association) for election to the board of the Trust. Former Olympic horsewoman Lucinda Green is also involved. [Guardian August 15, 1998; Times August 15 1998] 4.1.1.6 Forestry Commission and Ministry of Defense issues ---------------------------------------------------------- Prior to winning the General Election, Labour had promised to suspend all hunting both MoD and FC lands. There are 80-84 hunts using up to 203 million acres of FC land. The promises were not implimented though the situation has changed slightly. The MoD gave into threats from farmers who said they would withdraw their permission for the army to have access to their land if the MoD banned hunting on it's land. The MoD continue to license with minimal restrictions though the government have introduced a one month notice clause banned all digging out on MoD land - though the Royal Artillary hunt is being investigated for breaking the latter condition which had to be stopped by police. The FC initially suspended all rights to hunt on it's land, but these licenses have been restored, albeit much modified. Hunts must now seek prior permission if they wish to carry out terrierwork on FC land, and all licenses have a clause giving the right for them to be withdrawn with only a months notice - in preperation for the forthcoming bill of Michael Foster. Deerhunting has been allowed on FC land in the Quantocks following the publicised slaughter of deer by farmers in protest at Foster's bill but this will only last to the end of the season. It remains suspended it on the rest of their land. [source: Daily Telegraph, 3 and 7 Aug 1997; Times 25 Nov 1997; Independant, 28 Nov 1997; [Wildlife Guardian, Winter 97/98]] 4.1.1.7 Tom Worby and Mike Hill ------------------------------- These are two young people who have been killed in the course of sabbing. Like with Jill Phipps their death tends to be hotly disputed. Hunters claim stupidity and no responsibility. Sabs say that it was entirely the fault of the hunters involved. I have included an account from a sab involved in the Tom Worby case in the appendix. When one for Mike Hill appears that shall be included as well. 4.1.2 Allegations and Activities - claims, refutations and explainations ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This subsection hopes to single out the main points and claims made by hunters and their supporters, and then to give the ARA answer to them 4.1.2.1 Hunting and the Economy ------------------------------- "...well over £100 million worth of buisness would be lost to the rural economy" Baroness Mallalieu [PL]So it is and economic thing webtrake, yes it is a very important thing......Expenditure on hunting means about £180 million for the rural economy From the 1995 MAFF booklet "Improving Lamb Survival" 4 million lambs die each year and only 5% of them (£6 million of the total £120 million cost) are due to misadventure and predation so the cost of the fox is over 30 times less than the £180 million the hunters claim to put into the economy; and then the hunters only kill 2% of the total fox death. Like the employment figures discussed in the next subsection this is one of the hunter's favourite claims and also happens to be with out sound basis. Most of their arguement is that they form a significant industry providing a demand for all the clothes, kit and periphery surrounding hunting. Their figures come from the point of view that these support buisnesses depend entirely on the hunters for income. However, given that only 7% of horses are ever used [source: LACS] in a hunt that is one industry unlikely to collapse if hunting is banned as there is still the demand for the rest. And not every horse used for hunting is used solely for that purpose, or is likely to be killed as soon as hunting is banned, then it is equally unlikely that the knock on effect on the service industries predicted by hunters in the wake of a ban is going to occur.There is also the point that since these people are willing to spend on a pleasure activity in the countryside, this money is not going to vanish altogether as there are many other countryside activities including draghunting. Dr Neil Ward of Newcastle University exmamined the BFSS claims on the effect of a ban on behalf of the BBC's program "Close Up North" and concluded that a ban could actually boost the rural economy. He said: "It is quite possible that once the aspects of cruelty are removed from the country sports, the attraction of riding horses in groups, arranging meets at country pubs and drag-hunting could be enjoyed by many more people than at present. It is therefore plausible that expenditure and jobs in alternative areas like draghunting could thrive and even increase after a ban." [Wildlife Guardian, Winter 97/98] 4.1.2.1.1 How many are employed by hunting? ------------------------------------------- "15,200 jobs depend solely on hunting, and many more rely in part on it" Baroness Mallalieu Other figures range from 3,000 to 65,000 depending on your hunter. The key part of Mallalieu's quote is the reliance in part. The hunters provide buisness, but they dont provide the exclusive buisness for the support industries. And they certainly dont provide the majority of buisness for them so they are not going to all go bankrupt as soon as hunting is banned. There is no proven real reliance at all. As draghunting is on the increase and people are not going to give up their horses so easily it is not very likely that much buisness will be lost. As for the actual numbers employed, given there are 300 registered hunts in the country, of which only the biggest employ at most three people, then a much more accurate figure for the number who would lose their jobs if hunting is banned is about 1,000. When the New Forest Buckhounds closed only 2 people where laid off as a result. [source: The Times, 29 July 1997] As the hunters only account for about 16,000 fox kills a year (see later for this figure) then Mallalieu's claim works out at about one person employed per fox killed! Of the people employed by a hunt the following comes from Tim Bonner, a pro-hunt contributor to uk.p.a: "The smallest hunt will have a professional huntsman or kennel huntsman who is in charge of hounds etc. He will usually hunt hounds unless one of the masters does. Every hunt will also have at least one professional whip who will also work in the kennels. Every hunt will also have at least one groom to look after the hunt horses. Larger hunts obviously have many more staff. A huntsman ,2 professional whips, 2 kennelmen, and half a dozen grooms would be normal for a shire pack. There is a list of *professional* huntstaff which anyone wanting a position puts there name on. Staff changeover with masterships on 1 May every year. Pay is v. low but the huntsmen of larger packs do very well out of the Boxing day cap which traditionally goes to them. Some will clear 5 figures. There is a Hunt Servants Benevolent Fund which provides pensions for hunt staff and looks after those who have been injured which as you can imagine is not uncommon." 4.1.2.1.2 Is the fox a pest? ---------------------------- "The problem only really arises in hill farming areas...Even the most anti-fox people have rarely suggested that foxes kill adult sheep so that the bits of wool and mutton that are in foxes' stomachs and scatsduring the winter are concluded to be the result of scavenging on dead carcasses. From March to July lamb remains appear in stomachs...in samples of foxes killed in different parts of the west of Scotland during the lambing season, lambs made up between 35 and 45 percent of the stomach contents. However it is not possible to put the bits and pieces together and discover the condition of these lambs when they were eaten. They could have been predated or they could have died naturally and been scavenged....some will tell you that it takes thirty or more lambs to rear a den of fox cubs, but nobody who has examined the subject has concluded that foxes kill more than one or two percent of the overall annual lamb crop in hill areas....given the large home range sizes of hill foxes and the high density of sheep, even the most ovicidal fox would be hard put to make a serious impact on a lambing flock. To some degree the fox is made a scapegoat for the problems of hill farming in inhospitable areas..." Hugh Kolb (who worked on foxes for ten years for the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department). "There are a lot of preconceived ideas about the fox which are ingrained. While they persist, people do notapproach the problem logically. Widespread blanket killing is not working and costs a fortune. Whether we stop hunting or not, it is not going to have any impact on the number of foxes. The number of foxes is related to the food supply. They naturally regulate their own numbers. There is a lot of hype and misinformation about foxes andlots of silly claims have been made. I think we have deflected those claims." Professor Harris of Bristol University [source: Birmingham Post] Much of the justification in killing the fox is that it is a pest or is vermin. In other words the fox is believed to cost farmers money. The MAFF report quoted else where shows that the lamb has much more to worry about from bad farming and animal husbandry. Many poultry incidents can also be avoided if the owners took care to ensure their birds were properly locked up at night and the coops kept in good order. A survey of 50 farms representing about 200, 000 free range hens protected with electric fencing reported no losses to foxes. To be more scientific about this issue, Bristol University conducted a study entitled "Is this fox a pest?". Its results can be summarised as follows. 1) Between 57% and 87% (depending where you are in the country) of farms suffer no financial loss whatever because of foxes. The 87% is Scotland by the way. 2) 80% of sheep farmers had no evidence that foxes took lambs. 70% did not lose lambs to foxes. 3) In the Scottish Highlands, fox control was stopped for 4 years and no evidence of increased predation was detected. The same study showed that less than 1% of lambs were killed by foxes for each of the 4 years. 4) Of lamb mortality, 40% die because of abotion and stillbirth, 30% die from exposure and starvation, 20% die from disease, 5% die from congenital defects and 5% from misadventure and all predation. 103 million pounds per annum is lost by farmers for reasons other than predation and misadventure. Also on the issue of pests it is to be noticed that the fox controls many other smaller and more populous animals, having an important role to play in the ecosystem. It principle foods are myxi rabbits and the like, for which their is no need for chasing, beetles, worms, fruit, grasses etc, and in particular small mammals such as voles. Scientific studies showing that the fox is not a pest are Fox diets: Jensen and Sequeira (1978) list 34 studies of fox food from Europe. Lloyd (1980) summarised food items taken by foxes from Britain and Sweden , Australia, USA, Finland and Bulgaria. Harris and Lloyd (1991) list some British fox food studies. Some studies relate the analysis of faeces to the quantity of foods eaten (Lockie, 1959). Macdonald (1977) studied preferential recovery of cached food items and feedingtrials with tame foxes. Population density: Lindstrom, (1989) studied social control of fox density. Kolb and Hewson, 1980. Hewson, 1984, 1986. Reynolds and Tapper 1995. Fairley 1971. Economic impact on sheep farming, game rearing etc: Macdonald 1987. Fairly 1969. Hewson, 1981,1984, 1990. Jensen and Sequeira, 1978. Swan and Tapper, 1991,1992. McVean and Lockie, 1969. Dobson and Hudson 1994. 4.1.2.2 How popular is hunting? ------------------------------- Rossendale Free Press, 15 Dec 1991 The village organised a petition to get rid of the Halcombe Harriers. The answer is no where near what the hunters would have you believe. A look at section 4.1.0.1 on relevant polls shows that currently around 80% of the population are opposed to hunting. In fact support is on the decline. Relevant facts are that 160 local councils, of which 37 are County Councils, have voted against hunting; and since 1965 forty two hunts have disbanded[LACS]. For the Boxing Day meetings, the highlight of the hunt calender, a 1994 survey showed that the total number of spectators, riders and followers amounted to 100,000 people. Most significantly, in 1992 the Advertising Standards Authority warned the BFSS not to repeat the unsubstantiated claim that over a million people came out to support the hunters. The actual number who go out hunting or supporting on a regualar basis is going to be significantly smaller than the Boxing Day turnout. The BFSS has approx 80,000 members while LACS has 40,000 and the RSPCA 42,000 (with 500,000 regular supporters).[source: Telegraph 10 July 1997] Similiarly while the BFSS could only get 42,000 postcards (many of dubious origin) sent to Labour as part of its winter campaign, the previous anti hunt bill resulted in Parliament recieving half a million letters and postcards. It is also possible that support could rise if hunts switched to draghunting as the ethical problems of cruelty that lead many people to disavow hunting would no longer be present and it would be seen as a more acceptible pasttime. 4.1.2.3 Town vs Country ----------------------- "We do not want conflict between the town and the country....We want others to share and enjoy the countryside with us" Baroness Mallalieu "...[hunters/farmers] be the target of abuse and vilification from those who claim to tove animals but seldom have any knowledge of or direct responsibility for caring for them. The irresponsible seem to feel free and qualified to tell the responsible that they are barbaric sadists and perverts" Baroness Mallalieu [PL]We know that about 95 percent of people who oppose hunting have no direct experience of it. A deliberate ploy of many hunters is to say that those who oppose their pasttime are infact ignorant of both nature, animals and the farming issues surrounding hunting. This is an attempt to discredit the anti hunt protesters and to try and tie the hunting issue in with the wider problems facing the countryside. The hunters argurement is in several section here. First they make out that only the rural and farming communities know the full issues and thus their opinions count more. They then say that they have the support of these rural and farming communities. This is then used to imply that the opposition to the hunters is a purely urban one and thus of people who dont know what they are talking about. All three sections are very flawed. As many of the actual hunters are commuters themselves, they are equally likely to be uninformed of the issues according to the hunter's claims. The arguements also are very arrogant in that they would deny twon people the right to opinion and to make up their own minds as to the ethics of hunting with hounds. If the hunters complain of the anti-hunt propaganda, they are being hypocritical given that they have enough of their own. 4.1.2.3.1 Hunters and the Rural Community ----------------------------------------- However, a NOP poll of May 1996 shows that 48% of farmers have already banned hunting from their land. Meanwhile both LACS and sabs are able to have a presence in many areas due to the support that they get from locals. Though many farmers still allow hunts on the land (the Game Conservancy Trust has pointed out that some of this is because of peer pressure), the hunts have lost support through their arrogance and repeated trespasses. There is also the issue of pets being killed, livestock being invaded and damage to property. The Gallup poll of November 1991 shows that 77% of the rural community are against hunting. Thus overturning the myth that the hunters enjoy their full support. A study by Wiltshire County Council showed that only 60% of non-dairy stock farmers and 35% of dairy farmers considered foxes to be a pest. 8% of mixed farmers and no arable farmers considered foxes to be a pest, while only 53% of those advocation control did so because they believed foxes actually killed domestic stock. [RSPCA Wildlife Snippets Nov 96] 4.1.2.3.2 "Anti-Hunt People dont know the issues" ------------------------------------------------- i)Farmers There is an implicit assumption in the hunters arguements, which is that the farmers know what is best. This is blatantly not true. Owning a farm doesnt automatically make you a good farmer, even if it is one that has passed through the family. The MAFF booklet on lamb husbandry quoted elsewhere in this FAQ shows that 95% of lambs deaths are a result of bad farming practice. Farmers are out to make a profit and so do not form the most unbiased of testimonies. (After all the only reason the farmer has for worrying about their livestock is so that he can sell them on latter to slaughter houses.) ii)Townies This arguement also presupposes that if you live in a town you have no knowledge of animals. A completely unwarrented claim. Many sabs and LACS activists have regular contact with animals and are knowledgable about the issues surrounding hunting. Nor does a lack of direct contact imply that the ethical issues of chasing an animal for fun under the guise of doing a service to the farmer can not be known. 4.1.2.4 The Class Issue ----------------------- [PL]A whole cross section of people who live in the countryside hunt. Most poeple follow on foot or by car RATHER than on a horse. A great many of them are just normal country people, many of them working class. "All this arguement is nothing to do with the fox; the anti brigade believe it is an elitest sport carried out by monied people, which is nonsense" David Jones, of the David Davies hunt [Times, 29 Nov 1997] Michael Foster's bill is sponsored by the Tory MP's Roger Gale and Sir Teddy Taylor, as well as by 4 Labour, 3 LibDems and 1 SNP members of parliment. [Daily Telegraph 18 June 1997] This is another tactic of hunters to divert the issue away from the ethics of their activity, and is similiar to the supposed divide between the people of the countryside and of the town as discussed in the previous section. Thrown in with this is the myth that those anti-hunt people are left-wing with a chip on their shoulder as they feel excluded from hunting. The ethics of animal abuse has no basis in human politics and in the vast majority of animal welfare and animal right discussions there is no place for political or class based beliefs. People oppose hunting for numerous reasons depending on their approach. This arguement crudely insinuates that protestors do not really care for the animals and are thus hypocrits. This is complete nonsense. To further disprove the class issue, a 1991 NOP poll showed that 69 % of Conservative voters opposed hunting. Also, LACS can boast Lord Soper as it's current president and an Earl as a previous one. Anti hunt does not automatically make one pro animal rights; indeed most people will see the issue as one of welfare - that it is blatently cruel and uncivilised to chase and kill an animal for fun which makes no reference to class. 4.1.2.5 Why Hunters Hunt ------------------------ [PL]Correct me if I am wrong Paul - but the enjoyment is the riding through the countryside, foxes are not always caught. surely what is important is that foxes need controlling and hunting is a very humane way of doing so......I repeat I dont enjoy the death of the animal, I just enjoy the excitement of the chase. The foxes well be controlled any way. Does the fox care whether I eat it or not? "...Everyone is so busy to defend hunting they keep talking about how their only motivation is to controll foxes. In fact very few of us hunt for that reason (somewhat altruistic to spend thousands of pounds on horse, kit, etc., to help out some farmers most of us hardly know.) In fact we go because we enjoy it - whether its for the ride, or for the friendship, or the hound work (or even the body chocolate). In the UK, the reason we CAN hunt over so much of the country is that farmers are keen on anything that kills foxes..." Janet George on the Foxhunter email list, 1997 "Hunting is our music, it is our poetry, it is our art, it is our pleasure. It is were many of our best friendships are made, it is our community.....And we will fight for these things with all the strenght and dedication we possess because we love them." Baroness Mallalieu [PL]on why hunting is a sport It's exciting. It involves risk to the human and like all sports it's something which requires skill and is challenging....Foxhunting people take no more pleasure from the death of a fox than you do from the death of the cow that supplies your rump steak...foxes are very cunning animals and much respected by hunting people. There is no one reason that sums up why people go hunting with hounds. The main AR point here agrees with what the hunters say themselves for the most part. The death of the fox facilitates the rest of the hunt. This is bad enough in itself as it trivialises the foxes life and suffering. It's pain is to the hunters an acceptible price for their pleasure; and some even believe their own propaganda that the fox feels nothing. However, many activists on the ground dealing with hunts say that there is a good number of hunters who enjoy the killing of the fox and the drama around the event. Though the majority of a field will normally not be present for the moment of the kill, there are those for whom it is the highlight of the day and are happy to break guidelines and the law to ensure a kill. This goes beyond pleasure to bloodlust. Meanwhile they see the need to justify their actions by creating a number of declarations as discussed in the following section. 4.1.2.6 Hunters on the need for hunting --------------------------------------- Much of the following is based on Cris Waller's excellent article (originally for uk.politics.animals) "The Case Against Foxhunting", available at the following website: http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/pdi/foxpaper.htm and it is recommended that this is read as well as this FAQ. It is a review of the scientific literture on the subject of foxes and how the results apply to hunting with hounds. The current maintainer of this FAQ will email out copies on request for those who cannot access the website. It is generally claimed that hunters are allowed to ride over the fields of farmers because they are doing the farmer a service in controlling the foxes. THis naturally splits into two types of question: i)Why do farmers feel hunting is nessecary to start off with; ii)Why do hunters say their method is best. The second one has several answers which will be dealt with individually. For now we will be concerned with the first one. There are some farmers who allow hunting out of tradition, but the vast majority do so because they believe they are being threatened by foxes. I say believe because there is evidence that they are greatly overestimation the threat of the fox. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food produced a booklet in 1995 called 'Improving Lamb Survival', in which it was stated that approximately four million lambs died annually at a cost to the farming industry of #120 million. 95% of these deaths were due to hypothermia, malnutrition and disease; while only 5% died due to 'misadventure' and being killed by dogs, birds of prey and will animals. A LACS program whereby they offered compensation to any farmer who could show that their sheep had been killed by a fox recieved 23 lambs, collected from 18 farmers who made such a claim. Some of these had no sign of preditation and the vets conclusions was that only 5 had been killed by small dog or a fox while being otherwise healthy, 6 had been killed by an animal larger than a fox. All but 4 lambs were aged 5 days or less. [LACS 15th April 1997] Other work done by the US government (referenced and quoted by Cris Waller) shows that farmers on average over estimate by 2000% the kills due to foxes. So, though it is not possible to deny that foxes never kill lambs, it appears from the evidence that their effect on the mortality rate is over estimated in an attempt to promote hunting and fails to note the much more serious risk to farmers profits of bad husbandry. On chicken coops, if you are going to build the equivalent of a supermarket for foxes then it is only natural they will go shopping there. Most chickens are again placed at risk by poor maintainance of their housing, as for the majority of them the greatest danger is at night. For those particular concerned there exists on import from the US the "Animal Warning Device" used there to deter animals from walking out in front of cars but could easily be adapted to farms, etc. Indeed it deters other potential predators besides foxes.The Animal Warning Device is available, price £9.95, from Anderson Speciality Products, PO Box 311, Canterbury, Kent CT2 0DS. [Guardian June 29, 1998] 4.1.2.6.1 "Foxhunting controls foxes" ------------------------------------- From a Game Consevancy Trust press release [via Cris Waller] *in 3 study sites (mid Wales, East Midlands, West Norfolk) hunting is allowed on 50-90% of the land *"For Britain as a whole, professional gamekeepers achieve the largest cull of any specialist interest group." *"The maximum reproductive potential of fox population dictatesthat total morailty decline exceeding 65-70% of the Autumn population will cause population decline" *They conclude that the actual effects of culling *cannot* yet be determined, until they finish analyzing the results with a computer model of fox populations. > What hunting does do,is play its part in keeping the population > balanced and you will find that a great many farmers will not kill > every fox if they know that the hunt are going to be playing their > part.This is even true of the big shooting estates.However,if hunting > were banned,I believe that landowners would have no hesitation in > killing every fox that they could and the result would be a > significantly reduced fox population perhaps even to the point of > decimation.This is particularly true in areas of Norfolk where there > is no foxhunting.. Tim Pinney, Aug 1997 on u.p.a Consider that besides hunts there are fox destruction club, NFU sponsored bounties and terrierwork independant of hunts in many areas not to mention the farmers against the fox. Given that it takes 60-70% of a fox population to be killed in year to affect its numbers in a local area in the coming year and that the hunt only kills approx 3% (roughly 16,000 according to their figures - with approx 240,000 adult foxes and 425,000 cubs born each year according to Prof Harris and Dr Baker of Bristol University) then the long term impact on the fox population, as postulated by Tim, is unlikely as to do a quick sum there would need to be at least (lower range) 480 000 foxes killed in one year to properly decimate the species to the point that it would be on the verge of extinction!! Even then it is has the suvivors would have the abiltity to rapidly regain numbers in a few years. However this is an extreme senario, but even if we look at such an event happening in a local area, the evidence quoted in Cris Waller's article there would be a continued recolonisation of the areas just decimated from unaffected areas, not unlikely from those foxes living in suburbs, as what matters most is the food supply and the territory available. Fox populations that are hunted regularly will produce more offspring to ensure survival. See Cris Waller's article for further details for this arguement. The point is that even if Tim's senario of a local decimation did happen it would be ineffective unless it was kept up year after year, so making it a fairly inefficient and futile effort. [PL]...what hunting does is to pick off the old, sick and injured foxes which tend to be those which cause most problems to farmers because they go for easier prey. They get desperate and lose their fear of Man.......The difference is that lots of foxes are going to die anyway because farmers want them controlled. A claim with no basis in science what so ever, and as pointed out by Cris Waller hunters show no discrimination when they go out. The survey by Wiltshire County Council in 1996 on foxhunting concluded that the overall contribution of foxhunting to the fox mortality was neglible, and that farmers more relied on shooting than foxhunting for fox control. Road deaths for foxes is estimated at 100,000 a year, five times more than the effect of hunters [Guardian June 29, 1998] In summary the blaming the fox is a convenient excuse to let human interests and mismanagement of the hook. 4.1.2.6.2 "Foxes are only tolerated due to hunting" --------------------------------------------------- From a Game Conservancy Trust press release [via Cris Waller] "For the last 200 years, hunts have attempted to coordinate fox culling on a regional basis by negotiating exclusive rights to hunt foxes. They did this because they believed groups who regarded the fox as damaging....would otherwise reduce the numbers of huntable foxes using other means...continued permission to hunt implies: *-either* the landowners and their tenants are satisfied with the level of culling supplied by hunts *-or* that they are prepared to accept some sort of damage by foxes...in return for sport or some other benefit (it is acknowledged that social pressure and financial compensation have each played a role) *-or* that the damage caused by foxes to landowners' or tenants was exaggerated in the first place" In some areas this may be true. However, farmers allow the hunt on their land to ensure a fox is killed. The likelihood of toleration is very rare and is rather contradictory to the nature of foxhunting. And given that only 2% of foxes killed are by hunts then it can be seen that the fox population is not tolerated very much at all. 4.1.2.6.2.1 Aritifical Earths/The Case of the Sinnington Hunt ------------------------------------------------------------- In a bizarre twist on this arguement, some hunts actually encourage foxes to move into an area. This is done both in leaving out food supplies and building artificial earths. The latter occurs in the heavily sheep farming area of Cumbria and by hunts in the eastern half of the country where there is little woodland. This tactic is used to ensure that a hunt will have a kill especially on important meets. Former Huntsman Clifford Pellow has claimed that many hunts will trap a fox a few days before in order to throw it to the hounds on the day of the hunt. Recently there has been the case of the Sinnington Hunt where activists were found a pair of three month old fox cubs being kept in cages on land (called Muscoates Whin) owned by this North Yorkshire hunt. The cubs were rescued by the RSPCA with photo and video evidence taken following a LACS investigation. LACS claim it has identified 32 hunts using artificial earths, including the Beaufort Hunt and the Thurlow Hunt. The then BFSS claimed that artifical earths were a thing of the past. An investigation by the Master of Foxhounds Association unsurprisingly did not find any case of involvement by the Sinnington - rearing of foxes is against their own rules. [Independent in several articles from June 1998; Times June 30 1998] 4.1.2.6.3 "Hunters promote conservation" ---------------------------------------- [PL]I simply understand the reality of nature and wildlife management "Because there is beagling in the first place in Cheshire, we are fortunate in having a healthy hare population. Stopping beagling would lead to a rapid decline in the hare population" Charles Hardy, joint master of the Cheshire Beagles, Chester Chronicle 15/11/91 This is more commonly used as a threat, by saying that hunting means that there are areas of Britain left untouched by modern farming methods so that hunting can continue on that land, so thus when hunting is banned the the farmers will start ripping up the land. This is patently a false conservation, a blackmailing trick designed to make the hunters look good. Any conservation that is done is a purely self serving one, and the question is begged were where the hunters when the land needed them when modern agricultural methods took over resulting in huge changes to the countryside. In 1996 two representatives of the West Norfolk Foxhounds were fined £5000 for pollution of a stream with the remains of animals while acting on behalf of the hunt (which admitted full responsibility). In 1997 the Pytchley hunt were fined over £5000 for polluting a waterway with blood from carcesses at their kennels - the hunt's secretary Richard Payne pleaded guilty to the offence. While currently Capt Ian Farquar, Master of the Beaufort is under charges of having being involved in water polluting incidents. It can also be pointed out that former huntmaster and landowner, Robin Smith-Ryland, was fined several thousand pounds for taking out hedgerows. Meanwhile, foxes help control rabbit populations which have proved to be an agricultural pest, acting as one of their natural preditors. While the Duke of Westminister, a prominent financial backer of the pro-hunting campaign, has been heavily criticised for restricting the right to roam on large areas of his vast lands. Meanwhile the former chief executive of the CA, Edward Duke, built several factories on greenfield sites This arguement is also quite popular with those promotion hare coursing, but the logic is the same: how can it be conservation if you are merely doing it to provide a supply of animals for you to be killed. 4.1.2.6.4 "Cubbing controls foxes" ---------------------------------- The 10th Duke of Beaufort, then Master of the Beaufort foxhounds said with regards to cub hunting "Never lose the sight of the fact that one really well-beaten fox cub killed fair and square is worth half a dozen killed the moment they are found without having to exert themselves in their task. It is essential that hounds should have their blood up and learn to be savage with the fox before he is killed". Cubbing is the pre season hunt activity, starting in August and lasting up to the start of the full hunting season on Nov 1. The main purpose of cubbing is to give the younger hounds a taste of blood - the style being different from the proper hunt - so encouraging them to kill. The hunters also claim that cubbing promotes early dispersal of foxes so preventing there being an accumulation of foxes in an area to trouble the farmers. As Cris Waller's article points out this claim is completely unsupported by scientific research and what research there is indicates that the dispersal that happens is non random and controlled by other factors. She also notes that cubbing seems to have no benefit to the farmer as it doesnt reduce the number of breeding foxes in an area, so not forming an effective control at all. 4.1.2.6.5 "Hunting is not cruel" -------------------------------- [LACS] PR 2/9/97 lacs witnessed an incident in New Forest where the New Forest FHs cornered a young fox in an earth which was then blocked (including with a large piece of wood) - the hunt then left the vicinity leaving the fox stranded underground. Lacs had also to intervene and stop some terrierwork [LACS] PR 3/7/97 Oct 1993 New Forest foxhounds chased a fox into a flooded drain near the A31 trunk road between Cadnam and Ringwood. The hunt terriermen were called and one end of the drain was blocked with a spade, some water was drained and a terrier then put in. After 15 mins the terrier dragged the fox out by locking onto its throat and lower jaw.the two animals were prised apart, and fox shot with a handgun. "Pain and suffering is infliced on animal in the course of sport. Nobody who has seen a beaten fox dragging his stiff limbs into the ditch in which he knows he will die can doubt this proposition" Reginald Paget QC MP (later Lord Paget) who hunted with the Fernie and Pytchley foxhounds. Taken from "In Praise of Hunting" Hollis and Carter 1960 "Another curious incident happened when ... hunting with the Quorn ... Hounds lost their fox in a drain... they had also lost their fox in the same drain several times that season. So the Master had the drain opened up. Inside they found the skeletons of no fewer than ten foxes; all no doubt had died as the result of crawling into a damp drain when they were overheated, for inspite of their tremendous courage, tenacity and wiry energy, foxes are highly nervous and sensitive animals. John Wentworth Day in `Country Life',1960 "I enjoy seeing the fox ripped apart by hounds" James Roberts, aged 14, who hunts with the Burton and Blankeney; from the Newark Advertiser Junior page, 1992 "In every hunt there are one or two people particularly terriermen, who get a sadistic pleasure from tormenting foxes" Paul Woodhouse, Huntsman to the Derwent Foxhounds; News of the World 1982 "To revert, then to our fox that has been marked to the ground at the end of a good run. Now has he saved his life? That is the question. At the close of a good run the fox is pressed and heated in blood. He scrambles to ground, let us say in a narrow hole or damp drain. Hounds mark him, nad the day being fine and further sport a probability, the Master in deference to the wishes of his field takes his hounds away for another draw. Meanwhile the fox lies there and the cold earth in which he is wedged will chill him and cramp his movements - he will quite likely die. I remember once, the day after a good run to ground, going with the keeper of the covert in which the mark had occured to see if the fox was still there. He was there - dead, There was once a drain between the Pytchley and the Grafton countie, and there was an agreement between the two hunts not to dig it. After a time tehy had to open up the drain to lay it fresh and within where the masks of thirteen foxes that had died of chill and cramp." CR Acton, `Hunting For All', 1937 Sir: I have seen a terrierman take a live fox into a wood in which the hunt were due to Draw, and when he heard the huntsman casting hounds he began to punch the fox still in the bag and let it out. Only a few locals were present, of which I was one. The others laughed a lot. Richard O'Hall, Minehead, Somerset - Letter to the Independent Wed, 01 July 1998 That foxhunting is cruel is the central tenant of mainstream opposition to this practise. However many of the books on hunting admit that the fox suffers (see above quotes). It is not just the fear and stress of the chase that is cruel. There is some scientific evidence (again refer back to Cris Waller's article) to show that hunting can have an effect on the fox's health if it survives the hunt, leading to painful conditions and/or early death. There is also terrierwork, which is normally a prolonged death struggle that the fox is destined to loose. Hunters claim that the terrier only marks where the fox is, what they dont say is that this is by the terrier sinking it's teeth into the fox. A claim by the hunters is that fox hunting is more humane than other methods of killing. In some cases this is true, and in others it is not. They also claim that in the event of a ban the foxes would be wiped out by wholesale shooting that would be much worse for the welfare of the fox. There are two elements to the arguement. The first element of this arguement, that the fox would be wiped out is based on the assumption that hunting is indeed the most effective form of control in terms of numbers. This falls down on two points. For starters, the mortalitly rate due to hunting with hounds is only one quarter of that due to shooting of foxes by destruction clubs and individual farmers, so the proclaimed massacre is already in place and not proving to be a whole scale extermination. Nor do they take into account that there are many urban foxes which would avoid such a senario, and their off-spring would eventually recolonise the territory in the situation that a local fox population was wiped out. It also has to be recognised that there are a sizable number of farmers who do not see foxes as a pest and whose land therefore would be a refuge for them. The second element of the arguement is the welfare aspect. Hunters claim that shooting is much worse as it would lead to many wounded foxes which would suffer a slow death from gangerine and starvation. Considering the above fact that more foxes already die from shooting than hunting there is no evidence to back up this claim. Shooting accounts for about 80,000 foxes a year. St Tiggywinkles, the biggest wildlife hospital in Europe recieves large numbers of injured foxes but during the last 20 years has never recieved a fox suffering from gunshot wounds. A survey of RSPCA wildlife hospitals showed that in the last few years they had 512 injured foxes of which only one was suffering from gunshot wounds. [source: Wildlife Guardian, Winter 97/98] 4.1.2.6.6 "Foxes die quickly" ----------------------------- [PL]The fox is killed very quickly by the hound. IF caught. The hounds weigh four or five times as much as the fox .... Paul - what happens if a fox is caught by the hounds and is NOT killed at once? It doesnt happen, Thistle. It's as simple as that. One of the mainstays of the hunters arguement that their form of fox control should be kept legal is that when there is a kill it happens quickly, so making it better than other forms of control. This is simply not true, and they have absolutely no evidence to back it up. In fact all the evidence in existance is to the contrary and the BFSS have shown no desire to produce evidence of their own to back up the quick kill theory. They base it on the claim that a hound will kill a fox by a quick bite to the back of the neck, though dogs do kill an animal as large as a fox in this fashion. All video evidence, including the clip of the Blencartha hunt used in the BBC2 by Barry Todhunter, shows the hounds attacking the soft belly first. This is born out by the evidence of autopsies, such as the one carried out on a victem of a Halcombe Harriers where the fox was killed by a horse riden over him by a hunter and the autopsy showed 35 bites to the stomach and legs before death and none to the back of the neck [Howl issue 64 and personal communication; Telegraph 11 March 98]. Sabs and monitors have heard the death cries of a fox on numerous occasions and know that it is not instantaneous as the fox is still struggling for life. The Halcombe Harrier postmortem report from the vet Ivan Holmes is in the appendix. Hunters on the newsgroup have maintained continually that the foxes die instantly. Dispite always being challenged they have yet to demonstrate any evidence to support this claim. 4.1.2.7 Hunters and violence ---------------------------- {Wildlife Guardian Spring 98] Chris Owen of the LACS' Cheshire Support Group was attacked by 5 hunt followers. at a February meeting of the Cheshire Foxhounds.Mr Owen was monitoring the hunt from a footpath and was knocked to the ground and repeatedly kicked in the head and body before the assailants stole his camera, worth 1300 pounds. His resulting injuries included a dislocated jaw and severe bruising. A 53 year-old man has been charged with robbery. Ken James, aged 75, was filming the activities of the Quantock Staghounds in Somerset a few days later. He was approached by amounted hunt supporter. Recognising the man as a particularly aggressive member of the hunt, Mr James trained his camera on his partner who was 200 metres away, fearing that she might be attacked. It was then that he was whipped on the back of the neck by what he described as a "hard, stinging blow". He went on: "I'm not a young man and I'm not very big. I had my back to the guy, so there's no reason that he should attack me, apart from the fact that he disliked what I stand for." Mr James' partner also saw the incident: "This man just whipped Ken for no reason. He did not utter a word." Police are investigating. How brave, whipping a 75 year-old man whilst sitting on a horse. During the same week, Kevin Hill, LACS Sanctuaries Officer in the West Country, found his front car tyres slashed after he'd been out monitoring the Quantock Staghounds. Another vehicle used to monitor hunts in Devon and Somerset, owned by LACS regional rep Steven Honey, was vandalised outside his home. The camera he used to film local hunts was taken although other valuables were left. On the last day of February, members of the LACS Wiltshire Support Group were monitoring the Royal Artillery Hunt when a Land Rover twice narrowly missed them, the intention being to intimidate them. The MoD Police were informed and the Hunt Master later apologised for what happened. A fortnight later, a similar event occurred when LACS reps monitoring the Tedworth Hunt were driven at by 2 terriermen in a Land Rover. [LACS] PR 30/4/97 At 9.30pm on 29th April 1997, two large exploding missiles were fired at the LACS West Country office at Dulverton, Somerset. [LACS] PR 21/3/97 On 21 March 1997, LACS monitor Peter White was monitoring a stag kill by the New Forest Buckhounds in Parkhill Enclosure, near Denny. A hunt official rode at him and crushed Mr White's ankle; as he attempted to get to his feet a hunt follower punched him in the stomach. Video evidence has been passed to the police. [LACS] PR 12/3/97 Jan 97 edition of terrier & lurcher mag 'Earth Dog, Running Dog', said on the possiblity that Labour would ban hunting: "Do you want to turn Britain's forests into charred waste land? ....Don't force the most law abiding of citizens to become terrorists or you [Elloit Morley], and your party will live to regret it.'Similiar threats to burn down forests were made in published correspondance from hunters in the North West based Daily Post, 'to burn down forests'. Boxing Day, 1996; Janet George, the BFSS Chief Press officer, said 'If any bill goes further through Parliament we could cause chaos on the motorways. Imagine what 5000 horse boxes could do on the M25, M5 and M6. [LACS] PR 5 Sept 97 Quantock Staghounds supporters attempted to pull a female LACS monitor, Ms A Scott from the back of a landrover belong to the LACS Regional Rep; another supporter was afterwards filmed standing on the bonnet of the landrover. [LACS] PR 16 May 97 The LACS exhibition van at the Devon Show was trashed on 15 April 1997 with windows smashed, paintwork gauged and tyres slashed. It was also broken into with merchandise and leaflets removed. [HSA] PR 24 July 97 Hunt rider Stephen Barners was found guilty by Chesterfield Crown Court of deliberately riding over hunt sab Sarah Lloyd in an unprovoked attack in an incident near Farnagh Green, Derby on 14 Jan 1993 at a meet of the South Notts FH. She was awarded 2500 pounds, having suffered a broken elbow and sever bruising. [Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals] PR 23 Sept 97 Security guards had to be hired to protect the CPHA campaign bus, touring the country in support of Michael Fosters bill, for the threats of hunters. One hunt supporter had to have a half brick removed from him after he acted agressively. In Colchester there was theft and vandalism while the local MP, Bob Russell who supports the bill, had to be escorted back to his office by the police in fear of his safety. The above show just some of the incidents of hunt violence towards those who acitively oppose them, whether through direct action (the hunt sabs) or simply monitoring (LACS). There have been numerous other threats including Welsh and West Country farmers threatening to burn down the forests and speakers at the Countryside Rally declaring it to be the last such peaceful rally and that the waterways will be poisoned. Then there is the fact that the tour bus being used to promote Foster's bill required security due to the intimidation and attacks by pro hunter supporters. Also two sabs, Tom Worby and Mike Hill, have been killed while out sabbing as well as numerous other injuries suffered by anti-hunt protestors. All a long shot from the general animal rights activist who believes that no harm should be done to either human or animal. For all the bluster of the hunters more harm and damage has been inflicted on protesters than they have done on the hunters, certainly in terms of physical assault. There is little evidence to support the hunters claims that they are the victems, and they rely on their supposed respectability to carry their claims. From the HSA website comes the following list of sabs hurt this year by hunters and hunt supporters. On the same website can be found pictures of the Portman hunt ready to carry out acts of violence on hunt sabs. Late August 1997: Saboteur Neil B from Dorchester visited at home by Portman FH terrierman Nick Stephens who tries to kick front door down, warning the saboteur that if he or any of his group try to disrupt Stephens' hunt, they will pay for it.Issues threats to kill Neil, his wife and their pets. Reported to police - no formal action apparently. Early September: Nick Stephens (as above) attacks the Dorset sabs' transit van with a pickaxe handle, whilst at the Portman FH, trying to smash the bodywork and windows. Foresight meant that the windows were grilled with mesh, stopping the glass shattering, but the van was damaged in the ensuing chase as Stephens tried to ram the van off the road, driving recklessly without lights at night, and then with full beam lights to blind the driver. A 999 call to police elicited no response from Dorset Constabulary. Early September: A single saboteur out trying to stop the Western FH from killing fox cubs in Western Cornwall is attacked by several jeering hunt followers. He is battered about the head, has his head and neck wrenched severely, brought back to consciousness before again being knocked and dragged around, then thrown into a huge patch of stinging nettles. He then has to walk 4 miles home. Mid September: More than 20 hunt supporters chase and threaten with pick-axe handles, less than 8 saboteurs who turn up at an evening cub-hunt of the Ashford Valley FH. Late September: Two saboteurs injured when run over by an All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) - one was run over in a field, the other was hit and carried along on the ATVfor over 50m before being punched and kicked by hunt supporters of the Ashford Valley FH. Whilst this was going on, another lone saboteur was set upon by up to 6 hunt supporters who punched, kicked and beat him around the body with lumps of wood. He was ultimately left semi-conscious in the field after being hit in the head with an iron bar. On arrival, Ashford police arrested the dazed saboteur for assault before finally taking him to hospital in Ashford. Late September: Saboteur receives serious cuts to top of head caused by horse's hooves when the Huntsman of the East Kent FH rides over him after a scuffle over the carcass of a fox the hunt have just killed. Mid October: Middle aged female saboteur attacked by a hunt supporter of the Cattistock FH, armed with a shovel. She narrowly avoids serious head injury, by raising her arms, but is injured on the hand. In the same incident, a saboteur has his faced rammed into the front grill of the transit van as hunt supporters try to wrestle his camera from him. As this is going on, a further duo of hunt supporters have climbed into the back of the transit van containing 5 terrified saboteurs and set about punching several of them in the face, and jabbing the driver of the van in the face with a stick. Three members of the same family (the notorious Martin family) have been arrested for this series of incidents and are currently on police bail. Early November: 4 saboteurs ambushed on footpath in E. Sussex by 11 Old Surrey & Burstow FH supporters. The 4 are punched and kicked to the ground and left in a muddy ditch by the laughing supporters. No independent witnesses, therefore, no police action. Early November: Saboteur from Kettering is kicked unconscious by hunt supporters of the Oakley FH in North Bedfordshire. At the time, the saboteur was accompanyinga young female saboteur on her first protest who was having difficulty keeping up with the rest of the group (of 7 sabs). Early - Mid November: Mass ridings down by mounted hunt followers of the Chiddingfold, Leconfield & Cowdray FH resulting in many minor injuries to saboteurs and in one case, a cameraman from Nippon TV who was filming with his back to the hunt when one of the masters rode into and over the top of him. Miraculously, he was shaken but uninjured. Caught on video by 2 saboteur cameras! Dismounted riders had to be restrained by W. Sussex police when they whip and attack female sabs with upturned bone-handled whips -again caught on video. Also, a saboteur was lucky to escape serious injury when a whipper-in from the hunt charged him down and rode his horse over the top of him. The hooves smashed a scent-spray lying next to the head of the prostrate saboteur - a couple of inches either way and this could have been the third dead saboteur of the 1990's Mid November: Female saboteur held down by 2 hunt supporters and repeatedly punched by another male follower of the Garth & South Berks FH. (Supporters probably from the Sandhurst & Military Beagles where the huntsman has just come from). End November: Several sabs ambushed and attacked by well-known hunt followers in balaclavas using pickaxe handles and metal piping. The two worst injured taken to Salisbury hospital with head injuries. Sab van rammed by hunt follower's Land Rover - which they later claim was our fault. Several of the hunt staff get involved in the clashes, one of the red coated riders pulled out a cut-down axe handle from his saddle to batter sabs in the field. Video and Photo evidence of the attacks. Start December: Dorset sab contact threatened at place of work by man with machete! The sab had to leave his work site as his work mates restrain the assailant. Man is part of a gang of poachers who are linked with the army of hunt followers who support the Portman, South & West Wilts, South Dorset and Hursley Hambledon hunts in southern England. They operate a telephone tree to co-ordinate responses to the arrival of hunt saboteurs at hunts in the region. They have now threatened to shoot or 'chop' any sabs who turn up in the Dorset area. The CID are currently investigating these death threats, and have installed a panic button in the home of the local saboteur. Mid December: Back at the Ashford Valley in Kent once again, a lone saboteur returning from a fundraising stall in town finds the hunt trespassing over land near his house from which they are barred. His vehicle is blocked in by hunt followers and all the windows are put in with axe handles and iron bars. He is pulled out of the smashed driver's window and given a severe beating including repeated kicks tothe head. When the police arrive, they (as usual) arrest the saboteur and impound his car. He is released from the police station at 3am, after which he is able to get to hospital to have his injuries treated. End December: Several sabs injured at the Essex Farmers & Union Hunt at their Boxing Day meet in Maldon, Essex. As usual, the press and TV cameras (and most of the demonstrators) left after the initial demonstration against the hunt. When the saboteurs left their vehicle to follow the hunt on foot, they suffered several violent attacks from hunt followers and riders. In the worst attack, a sab was knocked to the ground and repeatedly punched in the head, leaving him with a broken nose and head injuries. A female sab who came to his aid was punched in the face, resulting in a black eye. Also on this hunt, two sabs narrowly avoided being run over by demented hunt followers in vehicles, and a sab was ridden over by a lunatic rider, sustaining back injuries. This incident was apparently caught by Essex police on video, and resulted in an arrest. There were also a couple of arrests for the earlier unprovoked assault. 4.1.2.8 On the Fate of Hounds and Horses ---------------------------------------- Life expectancy of foxhounds is 10-12 years "As hunting dogs they suffer quite a lot of wear and tear and occasional injuries (jumping fences, etc) and tend to develop stiff joints/arthritis/bad feet by the time they are 6-8 years old (though it depends on the type of country and the genetic soundness of a particular breeding line). Because of deterioration in their physical condition (which would make them unlikely candidates for a long and happy retirement even if someone wanted to take on big, boisterous, destructive, non-house-trained dogs of 8 years or more) and because they'd be hellishly miserable kept in kennels and not being allowed out to hunt with the pack they are put down. In fact some particularly sound dogs are drafted to foot packs if they slow down a bit too much to stay in front of the horses but can still enjoy hunting. ...Experienced foxhounds did 6 seasons (bitches a little longer) which makes them seven and a half to eight " Janet George, UPA 24/6/97 "When one of Mr Bailey's pack reaches retirement age, usually about 5 years old, he shoots it and feeds it to the others. This practise, according to a hunt aficionado, is apparently to 'give the hound one last run'. In the stomach of his chums." Jim White on the VWH, Independant, 14 Feb 1997 "...that 50,000 horses and 20,000 hounds would become redundant overnight with consequences that need not be spelt out." Baroness Mallalieu In the BBC2 program "Under The Sun" on Boxing Day 97, the Ludlow Foxhounds are seen putting down a three year old foxhound which they no longer need. Sixteen hunt kennels in England and Wales have been assessed as unsatisfactory by the State Veterinary Service (SVS) since the beginning of the year, in relation to the controls under the Specified Bovine Material Order 1997. As part of the BSE controls hunt kennels are required to remove SBM from the carcases of fallen stock which they take from farms and stain and dispatch under controlled conditions for eventual rendering or incineration. Failings identified by the SVS apparently related to matters such as inadequate staining, storage or record keeping. Although not regarded as posing a risk to public health immediate remedial action is required to be taken by the operator and is subject to a further unannounced visit by the SVS to check it has been carried out. - [from Paul Kennedy, newspaper clipping 1997] Dear Dogs Today, Although I am a firm hunt supporter and I very much agree that the best and most healthy place for hounds is in a hunt kennels, I also believe that thought should be given to the fate of the hounds if hunts are banned. In December's Doggie Postbag, Jackie Drakeford said that hounds would be an uncomfortable element in your home and that people should go to rescue homes or breeders instead to find a pet. This is inaccurate to say the least. It seems to me that a Foxhound, a breed bred solely for health and good temperament, is likely to be just as good a house pet as a badly bred pedigree dog or a rescue dog with an established bad behaviour pattern. Having said this, I do not suggest that a first-time dog owner or a person without lots of spare time should take on a Foxhound. I feel a Foxhound would make an enjoyable and challenging pet, and having great respect for the breed, I would hate to see a lot of hounds unnecessarily put down. Jane Lovelock, Devon A letter in `Dogs Today', Feb 98 Hunters claim how much they love their hounds and how they enjoy seeing them work. Some even claim that to be the reason that they hunt. But there is very little feeling for the animals themselves. To the hunt the hounds are just a commodity and to be treated as such. In fact most hunters and supporters have very little actual contact with the hounds, and the life of the dogs are a lot less rosie than they'd have you believe. For all the love that is professed for them, there is very little sign of it being put into action. Indeed one ex hunt master, Robert Layland, has been banned by Blackburn Magistrates Court from keeping horses or dogs for the rest of his life. He also recieved a fine and a three month jail sentence for causing unnecessary suffering to a number of horses. The hounds are kept in appaling conditions: they are forced to sleep on concrete, dont get out for a run every day, soil their own bedding and suffer from numerous ailments due to the way they are kept. Hunts dont like to waste money if they can help it. Soiling their bedding is an unnatural act for any animal and it fully signifies the conditions they are kept in. Sleeping on concrete results in arthritis for many which curtails their usefulness to the hunters. Having spent their life in those conditions, once their usefulness is over they are shot by the men who are supposed to love them. No retirement homes for old hounds. The normal excuse is that they are not house trained and can not be made so, therefore would not be good pets. This is blatantly untrue and numerous sancturaries have experienced the opposite with them. The National Canine Defense League also denies the hunt claims. [personal communication]. The fact that they are dogs means that they are actually a domesticated animal, also many rescue centres take in dogs that are not house trained and still manage to retrain and rehome them. We can also note that otterhounds we accepted for registration by the Kennel club and can still be seen in shows around the country, nor do they display a pack mentality. [Dogs Monthly, Nov 1997] We can also draw comparison with the case of otterhounds which faced the same prospects when otterhunting ceased as the foxhounds do in the face of a ban. The became a registered breed amd are now viewed as pets as opposed to kennel dogs. Hounds need not be killed solely because they do not perform to the hunters requirements. It is not unknown for hounds to be killed on whim or to make way for younger hounds. Few ever get passed on to drag and foot hunts. In the event that hunting is banned, hunters like to use the threat of massacre of horses and hounds. This again shows how little regard they have for their animals, that they would be willing to use such a grim form of blackmail, when the animals already live under that threat as it is. The fact is the hounds and horses are being used for callous emotional blackmail. The threatened massacre of horses is very unlikely, and the arguements picking holes in the hunter's statements have not been challenged properly. On hounds, AR and AW organisations have long said that they would be willing to take on the responsiblity for the hounds, though if the hunters really loved their animals they would stop quoting how uneconomical it was and help out. As it is offers have been made to hunts to take on the hounds once their hunting life is considered to be over, but even now they are not being taken up. Indeed the RSPCA have offered to take the 60 hounds off the Quantocks following a threat to have them all put down. There need be now massacre of animals at all, but like the arguements against draghunting, the hunters are willing to use them as part of their propaganda to keep their activity. A clear example of this was when the New Forest Buckhounds closed down and six hounds, aged between 8 and 10, were killed despite offers of homes being made by huntmembers themselves as well as the RSPCA. Michael Thomas, a former chairman of the hunt said, "These loyal and devoted dogs deserved a fair chance." Half of the hunt committee had wished to give the hounds a chance and see if they could be settled outside of the the hunt kennels. However, they were denied this chance and secretly shot. [Observer, 3rd May 1998; Telegraph, 4th May 1998] 4.1.2.8.1 Hunt Trespass ----------------------- Birmingham Post, 8 Nov 1997: "A headmaster yesterday described his horror after a baying pack of hounds tore through a primary school playground seconds after a group of nursery children went inside.Around 50 dogs hurdled a 4ft fence into the grounds of Wharncliffe Side Primary School, Sheffield before running into neighbouring gardens, where they tore a fox apart.Headmaster David Rogers said that had the hounds jumped the fence minutes earlier, a group of up to 33 children under five would have been in their path. "... it was just good fortune that they weren't out when the dogs came through. It's horrific to think that the dogs could have gone through when the children were there. Goodness knows how the children would have reacted had they seen the dogs in the state withthe scent up. They would have been absolutely traumatised." A police spokesman said no-one was with the pack" [HSA] PR 11 Oct 1997 "One of the UK's most prestigious fox hunts, the Fernie Foxhounds, was left in disarray today after their meticulously trained dogs ripped a pet tabby cat to pieces. On entering land near Holme Farm, Lubenham, Leics. a fox was sighted by the farmer who beckoned the hunt in his direction. The fox in fact ran through the farm buildings, but when the 30+ excited hounds entered the yard, they came across a farm cat which they tore limb from limb. The farmer was obviously pro-hunt in inviting the hunt onto his land.It is unclear how he feels about the situation now, having seen the end result of a kill." [LACS] PR 5 Sept 1997 "...witnesses saw and photographed a [Quantock] hunt official enter the LACS sanctuary at Morbath. The hunter was seen taking a shot, with a short barrelled shotgun, at a stag which he missed." [LACS] PR 2 Sept 1997 League monitors had to fetch police to prevent the New Forest foxhounds carry out terrier work on Forestry Commission land which breaks the terms of their license. [LACS] PR 25 Jan 1997; 6 March 1997 Thurs 23 Jan 1997 The Bicester with Whaddon Chase Hunt were filmed using railway embankments to flush out foxes; the same day the hunt crossed an active freight line near Quainton, and again on the same line at Doddershall in persuit of a fox. on 16 January 1997 they tresspased on a railway at Ludgershall and in Oct 1996 one of their hounds was killed on the main Marylebone to Bicester line. In Dec 1994 they brought a train to a standstill near Marsh Gibbon while it looked for foxes along side the line. 6 March 1997 the riders and hounds narrowly escaped from being hit by a train on the Marylebone to Birmingham line. These are just some of the many stories that can also be found in the Wildlife Guardian and other publications dealing with hunts trespassing. A hunt should have permission to go onto any land it utilises and the master should know what land they are or are not allowed onto on a particular day. Many hunts will trespass first and assume right of way until the owner states otherwise. And then there have been complaints of extreme arrogance in replying and even of continued harassment. One hunt in Wales sends out letters to landowners thanking them for permission to hunt before they even ask if they have it. Numerous farmers and smallholders have taken to patrolling and locking up their land whenever the hunt is in their area, and several hunts have been successfully taken to court and sued for damage due to trespass. As listed above hunts are willing to take their hounds into areas where both humans and animals are placed in danger. Other examples include hounds falling to death over quarry sides and through the ice in frozen lakes. A big source of complaint is that of rioting hounds, when the hunt has lost control and the dogs have rampaged through residences, gardens and schools, scaring children, pensioners and pets alike. 4.1.2.9 Claims made about Hunt Saboteurs ---------------------------------------- 4.1.2.9.1 "Sabs are violent" ---------------------------- [PL]I think a lot of activists...just like the aggro - never mind what it is about. That's very true, Thistle, they just want a punch up. Contrary to popular media and hunt statements hunt sabs are not gangs of violent hooligans only interested in a fight with the hunters and supporters. There are a lot easier ways to have a punch up than to get up early on a Saturday morning, travel a considerable distance in an uncomfortable van simply to have a punch up with some men and women on horses. The majority of sabs go out because they feel the actions of the hunters is evil and should be stopped. Their approach for the most part is a non-violent one, and indeed the majority of sabs actually dont end in violence. Most of the violence stems from the hunters reacting to the presence of protestors, hence the indiscriminatory violence shown to LACS monitors as well as sabs. Sabs are only defending themselves. As sabs believe violence towards animals is wrong, then by the same logic premeditated assault on other humans is equally wrong. They will protect themselves however, as numerous sabs have ended up in hospital as a result of hunt violence, such as the six in Ireland in Feb 1997, the girl with a fractured collar bone on the Glorious 12th in Yorkshire; and recently a hunter was found guilty of an unprovoked assault on Sarah Lloyd in 1993 which left her with a broken elbow. 4.1.2.9.2 "Sabs hurt and endanger animals" ------------------------------------------ This claim stems from two types of incident. One claim is that sabs stab horses. This possibly stems from the mutilations of horses around the country in recent years, by a person or persons unknown. This is clearly the work of a sick mind, and bears no relation to the issues surrounding hunting. Attacks on horses and hounds is condemned by all sabs, it is the sabs aim to prevent animal suffering, not cause it. Any sab who deliberately attempted to injure a horse or a hound would not be welcome on a further hunt sabotage, as their reasons for going sabbing are not to do with animal welfare. The second claim is one more of misunderstanding of a sab tactic. Sometimes chemicals such as anti-mate or citronella are sprayed by sabs to disguise the scent of the prey. When this has been done near the noses of the foxhounds the hunt have choose to interpret this as deliberately spraying the eyes of the hounds. Many of these claims have their origin in an article which appeared in the Financial Times, when it was claimed that sabs sprayed *acid* into hounds eyes - there is no evidence to support this. Sabs do not condone the hunters actions and by the same principle it is equally wrong to hurt any other animal, whether horse, hound or human. 4.1.2.9.3 "Sabs are all townies and ignorant of the real issue" --------------------------------------------------------------- Give the proportion of hunters who are 'townies' or commuters themselves this is quite a hypocritical charge as well as being false. Many sabs come from the rural communities, and have farming backgrounds. Indeed a number have even started out as hunters. Those sabs who go out quite regularly tend to have a very good knowledge of how the countryside and hunts work. To sab effectively one cannot afford to be ignorant of the way hunts work. Also there are also those sabs who have worked on sanctuaries and come into first hand experience with the issue of fox preditation. 4.1.2.9.4 On Hunt Balls ----------------------- Hunt Balls are seen as a legitimate target for protest even though no animal is actively killed at them, because they are a celebration of hunting and thus of the killing of foxes. As ARA's believe it is wrong to kill animals in the first place, it is certainly unjustifiable by the same principles to have a major social event based on that killing and thus glorifying it. 4.1.2.9.5 "Sabs are just criminals/hooligans/trespassers" --------------------------------------------------------- Sabs are none of the above. The are direct action protestors who believe that the life of animal is more important than the hunters pleasure. If some sabs decide that the prevention of cruelty and suffering requires them to trespass and disrupt a 'lawful' activity then that is their individual decision and their activity can not be used to classify all sabs. Nor are they hooligans out to cause trouble as they have a clearly defined objective, which is to protect and save the wildlife from the hunters. All of the above charges can be applied to certain hunts and their supporters. 4.1.2.10 Terrierwork and Terriermen ----------------------------------- [LACS] PR 20th February 1997 Nicholas Grooby was one of four men given four months jail sentences for badger digging in Nottingham today. At the time he was caught he was the official terrierman of the South Notts Foxhounds Terriermen are employees of the hunt whose main task is to ensure a kill. If a hunt drives a fox underground, it is the terrierman's job to dig it out or send in a terrier to bring the fox out. Quite often it is they who do the hunt's dirty work, and are well known for being cruel and breaking guidelines and laws. They will go out before a hunt and stop up setts and bolt holes. It is also whty who will bag foxes to be released in front of hounds. To most active anti hunt protestors they are the real scum and also the ones to be avoided given their propensity to violence. Many suspect terriermen and badger baiters as often going hand in hand - see section 4.7.1 for further discussion of this including a list of hunters and hunt employees who have been found guilty of participating in badger baiting. Also terriers are commonly used in badger baiting. Reports of this can be found in magazines devoted to terriers. In the past badger watch groups have been called out to rescue terriers stuck down badger setts and subsequently abandoned by their owners [source: personal communication from members of badger groups]. In some places the local badger group will follow the hunt to make sure that badger setts in an area are left alone. 4.1.2.11 "Hunting is a freedom and a right" ------------------------------------------- "It is about freedom, the freedom of people to choose how they live their own lives...It is about listening to and respecting the views of other people of whome you may personally disapprove..." Baroness Mallalieu ARA's take exception to this as it completely disrespects the foxes right to live and to die in such a horrible fashion. No one would think twice about condeming such behaviour if humans were being chases, so we should not do the same to foxes. What Baroness Mallalieu, and other pro hunters are trying to say, is that humans have the right to play god over other animals and that they are a secondary issue not only to human needs but to human pleaures. Animal rights philosophy takes the opposite view, that we have a reponsibility to them, especially not to abuse them in the name of pleasure. Hunters are disrepecting the opinion of the vast majority of the people of this country. Nobody is telling them how to live their lives. Anti hunt people are not seeking to end their pleasure, after all there is draghunting, but they do seek to end a needless and barbaric death in the name of that pleasure. Killing an animal for fun is not a freedom that is a fundamental right by any stretch of the imagination. Also on freedom, The Duke of Westminister, a director of the Countryside Movement and who bankrolled that organisation with a million pound interest free loan, has been critisied by the Ramblers Assosiation for refusing access to most of his moorland in the Forest of Bowland. [source: Independant 21 Nov 97] 4.1.3 Draghunting ----------------- "...drag hunting is more exciting than traditional hunting, with riders jumping between 50 and 75 fences a day. He added "I've been lucky in that I know a lot about Bloodhounds from an early age, and have been involved with them ever since leaving school. It seems to have got more popular now, probably because of the controversial nature of foxhunting." Graham Tutton, who looks after the hounds of the Farmers Bloodhounds as quoted in the Banbury Guardian 15 Jan 98 Draghunting is similiar to foxhunting in most respects only instead of chasing a live prey, the hounds follow a prelaid scent. There are several advantages to this, in that no animals need be harmed, trails are laid in advance and done so to ensure that a good ride is had and the farmer can be kept satisfied by not having hunt damage to his property and there is no terrier work involved. The pro hunt lobby are very dismissive of drag hunting and indeed critized strongly the Draghounds and Bloodhounds Assosiation, for entering into negotiations with Michael Foster. [source: Daily Telegraph, 3 Nov 1997] They claim that drag hunting is no were near as exciting as foxhunting and that the farmers will not let them use their land if they are not performing a service in killing a fox. Both these are easily refuted. For the former, the prelaid scent means that a better ride can be arranged and there is less waiting around for the hounds to put up a fox. For the latter, the number of drag hunts, though much less than the number of foxhunts, has been steadily increasing, while that of the foxhunts have fallen. Also, farmers will still need the hunt to collect the dead carcesses so the hunt will still be providing their main service to farmers. As people go to watch to see the hounds at work and people ride there is no reason why they should get any less pleasure from a draghunt, and indeed there is no reason why it couldnt be marketed as a proper sport, given that the majority of people would find it more acceptible with out the unnecessary kill at the end. As noted in the section on hunting and the economy (4.1.2.1) it is even possible that a switch away from foxhunting to draghunting may be an actual boost to the rural economy. The following quote comes from Dr. David Macdonald and P. Johnson of the Wildlife Consevation Research Unit at Oxford University in their 1996 publication "The Impact of SPort Hunting: A Case Study": "With the opportunities offered by modern odour chemistry to synthesise scents of particular qualities, the opportunities for farmers to profit by diversifying the use of their land, and the great desire of ever-more people to participate in benign country persuits, there would seem to be very strong incentives to explore with the greatest zeal and ingenuity ways of making drag hunting attractive. This would seem the only course that is likely to preserve, and indeed potentially enchance greatly, the traditions, skills, social infra-structure and employment associated with fox-hunting." 4.1.3.1 LACS Report on Draghunting ---------------------------------- Here are included relevant sections on the 1997 LACS publication "Draghunting - `A family sport'" The details of the N.O.P poll 44811 - Access to land for equestian sports, conducted between 8th and 19th March 1996. There were three questions asked: Q1A - "In the next parliment, it is possible that legislation will be passed that bans the hunting of wild animals with hounds. If this is the case, a local riding society may decide to set up a drag hunt. A drag hunt is one in which an artificial scent trail is laid across the countryside for hounds and riders to follow in accordance with the landowners directions. Would you, if asked, consider allowing a trail to be laid across your land?" Q2 Do you currently allow the hunting of foxes or other wild animals with hounds on your land.?" Question 1B dealt with the reasons given by farmers who would not or were not sure whether they would allow drag hunting. APPENDIX 3 - FARMERS ATTITUDES TO FOXHUNTING AND DRAGHUNTING (N.O.P poll March '96) 1) N.O.P. asked 1000 free-holding farmers whether they allow the hunting of foxes or other wild animals on their land. 48% said NO. 52% said YES 2) Asked whether they would permit draghunting on their land if fox hunting and similiar hunting of wild animals was banned, 30% said YES, 14% said NOT SURE, and 56% said NO 3) On in six (16%) of farmers who do not allow fox hunting etc at present said they WOULD allow drag hunting 4) Of those farmers who would NOT allow drag hunting, 64% cited their reasons as `damage to land' and `disruption of farming' 5) Only 8% of farmers who would not allow drag hunting, cited the reason that drag hunts do not kill foxes. 6) In the event of fox hunting and similiar hunting being banned by law, the number of farmers who would permit the alternative of drag hunting on their land, would be between 8% (minimum) and 23% (maximum) fewer than the number which presently allow fox hunting or other forms of hunting wild animals on their land. 7) Of those farmers who currently allow fox hunting etc on their land slightly more (42%) would allow drag hunting, than would not (40%) 8)Those farmers who currently allow foxhunting, but would not allow a drag hunt on their land, account for only 21% of the 1000 farmers polled. According to Baily's Hunting Directory, the numbers of pack of hounds hunting wild animals has fallen by 42 since 1965, whereas the number of drag hunts and bloodhound packs (which either hunt an artificial trail or the scent of a human athlete) have almost trebled from 8 to 22. These popular and humane Hunts all operate on farmland - and indeed some have actually been organised by farmers. APPENDIX 4 - FARMLAND AVAILABLE FOR DRAG HUNTING (N.O.P poll March '96) Examining in details of farmers' acreage in the N.O.P poll of 1,000 farmers and their attitudes to drag hunting and fox hunting, the following facts emerge. 1) Only 52% of the farmers polled currently allow the hunting of wild animals with hounds on their land. However, the results indicate that the larger the farmer the more likely that the owner is to allow hunting, including drag hunting. Calculation suggests that the percentage of farmland currently hunted could be as high as 68%. 2) According to a three year survey carried out by Dr David Macdonald and P. Johnson (as in the quote above), fox hunting `countries' occupy 14.5 million hectacres. 3) The N.O.P survey suggests that a maximum of 9.8 million hectacres (68%) are actually hunted. In the event of a ban on the hunting of wild animals with hounds the, amount of land on which draghunting would be permitted would be between 5.4 million hectacres and 7.5 million hectacres (55% - 77% of the total land currently hunted). 4) Therefore, if the existing 200 Fox Hunts switched to drag hunting, EACH HUNT would continue to have access to between 27,000 and 37,500 hectacres, ie up to 145 square miles. Notes a) The poll revealed that of the 48% of farmers who currently do NOT allow foxhunting on their land, one in six would permit drag hunting - thus opening up hundreds of thousands of hectacres of land on which hunting is currently prohibited. b) 37 County Councils and more than 100 smaller local authorities have voted for a ban on hunting on their land. Virtually all such Councils have made it clear that they have no objection to drag hunting. Therefore, in the event of a ban on fox huning, drag hunting could find themselves welcome on hundreds of thousands of acres of land owned by local authorities. 4.1.4 Other forms of Fox Control -------------------------------- Snaring, poisoning and shooting all form methods of foxcontrol. Though none of them are acceptible from an animal rights point of view, and it is even questionable whether they are necessary, they do actually account for more fox deaths than hunting with hounds, thus making the arguement that foxhunting controls foxes somewhat mute. Snaring and poisoning are illegal but is still practiced. Scientific research by people such as Macdonald and Harris (see Cris Waller's article for more details) has shown what really controls a fox population is the food supply and a population that is under assault will only counteract by producing bigger litters. Even if an area is completely cleared of foxes, this is only a temporary measure as foxes from neighbouring territories will ultimately move in and repopulate. Indeed, the need for fox control is questionable as their effect on the farming community is negible compared with other forms of losses, and on some estates where the foxes were completely culled it only lead to an increase of smaller scavengers such as rats and voles for which the fox forms a natural preditor and thus form of control. It is possible to lace food with fox contraceptives which is a much more humane way of control 4.1.4.1 Destruction & Unregistered Packs ---------------------------------------- Besides the official hunts with their formality there are two other types of hunting with hounds 4.1.4.1.1 Unregistered Packs ---------------------------- These are similiar to the official foxhunts but are not registed as such and do not have the same sort of structure. They are also on the whole a lot smaller both in terms of the size of the pack and the field, the latter normally being a group of friends. They do not have the same regulations covering them that official hunts do and do not go out as regularly either. 4.1.4.1.2 Destruction Clubs ---------------------------- These are groups of farmers who go out to shoot foxes. This is on a very irregular basis and happens very locally; they normally act when there has been a supposed attack by a fox or someone has spotted a set. 4.1.4.2 Foot Hunts and Hare Hunting ----------------------------------- These are like the smaller brother to foxhunts. They are very similiar and can be just as formal, with them having their own organisations. The main difference is that they do not use horses, but otherwise their technique is pretty much the same. Some of them, more particularly the beagle packs, hunt hares. Their season is roughly the same as the fox hunts. Though they are on foot they are quite fast and can be physically demanding. Their support and numbers is considerably smaller than that of the foxhunts. 4.1.4.2.1 Hare Hunting ---------------------- There are about 100 beagle packs, 10 basset packs and 40 harrier packs which are used to hunt hares. The season is from September/October to March/April. As a result pregent and lactating does are among the victems. A `good' hunt is considered to be when the dogs chase a hare for an hour to an hour and a half. Though the hare is faster the hounds wear it down by simply chasing it until it tires out. (see also under Hare Coursing - section 4.2) [source: LACS] Harrier packs also hunt foxes and some now do that exclusively. 4.1.5 Legal Issues ------------------ There are many civil remedies to trespass on land, or against persons which can be used. Youcan take an injunction out against someone coming onto land or near to your person or property if there is arisk of a breach of the peace. You need a solicitor to argue for an injunction in a County Court. If an injunction is served on you and you break it you are in Contempt of Court and may recieve a short prison sentence. Owners or occupiers of land or their agents may use minimum force to eject trespassers. The Criminal Justice Act 1994 has created a whole new range of criminal trespass laws. Under sections 61 & 62 (and also section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986) two or more persons trespassing on land with the common purpose or residing there may be directed to leave the land by a constable if there are more than 6 vehicles on the land or if any damage has been caused to the land (this has in the past included damage to a blade ofgrass) or threatening or abusive words or behaviour has been used towards the occupier or agents. Section 68 and 69 refer to the offence of Aggravated Trespass. Section 68 is committed by anyone trespassing on land in the open air, with the intent of disrupting a lawful activity. This does not include highways androads. Under section 69, if there are a lot of trespassers you may be directed to leave the land, anyone failing to do so may be nicked. To commit this offence you must commit both sections of the offence, ie you much be both trespassing AND disrupting. Sections 70 and 71 allows the police to ask the local council to prohibit tresspassary assemblies of 20+ people for up to 4 days within a five mile exclusion zone, if they may result in serious disruption to the local community . Anyone organising or inciting another to attend a trespassary assembly may be arrested and given up to three months imprisonment. Refusal to be directed away may lead to arrest and fine. All of the above CJA 1994 laws are instantly arrestable and unless the penalty is otherwise stated carry three months imprisonment and/or fine. On many demos and protests, section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 is used. This is the offence of using threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour or words within the hearing or sight of someone likely to be caused Harassment, Alarm or Distress. This is an arrestable offence with a fine. This same law appears as section 154 in the CJA 1994, which carries six months imprisonment if the act or words was intended to cause distress. Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 is if a person does as above but causes someone to fear immediate unlawful violence. Punishment is up to six months and/or fine. Section 3: Affray occurs when someone uses or threatens violence. Punishment is up to three years. If things get heavy Section 2 is Violent Disorder where three or more people use or threaten violence. Punishment is up to five years. And if the shit really hits the fan Section 1 is Riot, where 12 or more persons use or threaten violence for a common purpose. This carries up to ten years. All the above offences are instantly arrestable. After the coppers hit you, they may arrest you for hitting them. This is usually Actual Bodily Harm or Grevious Bodily Harm. Punishment is dependant on the severity of the assault but can be up to ten years. Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 makes wilfull obstruction of the highway an arrestable offence liable to a 50 pound fine. Section 78 of the Highways Act 1835 makes obstruction through misbehaviour or negligence a minor non-arrestable offence. Obstruction must be static. A moving procession is not normally an obstruction nor is an obstruction caused if persons or traffic can pass by. Section 51 of the Police Act 1964 makes assaulting or wilfull obstruction of a copper in the execution of their duty a non-arrestable offence, carrying six months and one month respectively. In court, whether a copper was acting legally in execution of duty can be questioned. Section 33 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 makes assault with intent to resist arrest an offence. Theft and Criminal Damage carry terms according to severity. Arson carries life! Breach of the Peace is a non-criminal arrestable offence(!), whenever and wherever harm has been or is likely to be done to a person or in their presence to their property. People have been arrested for Breach of the Peace on the basis that their presence may incite some one else to violence against them, ie you've been nicked if your conduct may lead to a Breach of the Peace by someone else. Without being found guilty a magistrates court can bind you over, to keep the peace for a fixed term. If you fail to keep the peace you or your surety loose a set sum of money. Refusal to accept a 'bind-over' can lead to a few weeks prison instead. This is a weird, unpredictable catch-all law dating back to 1361! 4.2 Hare Coursing ----------------- "It was a beautiful day and 8 hares were killed." Pamela Orton, BFSS Press Officer, speaking of the 98 Waterloo Cup. Probably the most reviled of all bloodsports and the least popular in terms of supporters and practitioners. The highlight of the hare coursing calender is the Waterloo Cup at Altcar when most of its followers gather together. There are about 20 hare coursing clubs though illegal coursing - done on land without the owners permission - is a problem in some areas. The season is between September and March Hare coursing involves releasing a hare into a field and setting greyhounds (lurchers and salukis are also used) after it. The headstart is 80 yards. The hares are normally obtained by beating an area or by men going out at night to trap them. The hare is normally given a recommended start of 80 yards and has to run for its life. A judge (who is mounted on a horse apparently) will then award the dogs points on their skill in catching the hare including for their speed. People bet on which grey hound will make the kill. It is not unusual to see a hare being killed by being physically torn apart if the two greyhounds have caught it at the same time. A hare once caught by a greyhound is not guarenteed a quick death as supporters claim - that may have to wait until a handler gets to the dog and take the hare of it to have its neck broken. Involved in this, there is also the issue that the hare population of the country is in decline. A survey by the Government's Joint Nature Conservation Committee has shown that hare numbers have declined by 80% over this century. Besides the 6,000 hares killed annually by coursing and hunting packs the hare is also in danger from modern farming practises, poaching and shooters. There is no reason to hare course other than for pure pleasure; this activity has been supported by the betting side to a considerable extent. [source: LACS] Hares are also hunted by hounds similar to foxes. The hounds used are beagles and bassets which have the field following on foot, and also by harriers where the field is mounted. There is a governering body for them under the name of The Master of Harehounds Associaton. 4.3 Mink & Otter Hunting ------------------------ Mink are not a native species to the British Isles but were introduced by furfarmers from the US early in the century. Release by the farmers they readily adapted to the river habitats replacing the otters that were on the verge of extinction. When hunting otters became unviable, the hunters turned to mink to replace them. Minkhunting season is from April to August/September. It is a foot hunt, and occurs along river banks where their natural habitat is. Once scented the mink is given chase by they hounds for a short time. Normaly the mink will seek sancturary in holes, drains or up trees. Sometimes it is bolted for a second chase but film footage has shown that hunters will throw the live mink to the hounds or drown it if captured and have even been shown cutting down a tree to get at their prey - as Ian Coghill (a former spokesman for the BFSS) was shown on national TV in 1983. Mink are not a pest and do not have to be controlled. They do take poultry but that can all be avoided by good husbandry. Most of the claims made for them are by hunters seeking to justify their activities and not backed up detail or science. According to Dr Birks, a zoologist at the University of Durham, `the mink's economic impact upon human activities is negligble when viewed along side agricultural pests like the rabbit and brown rat.' If the case is such that they have to be controlled then it can be performed by the simple process of using cages to trap them alive. Before minkhunting, it was otterhunting that occupied the summer break between foxhunting seasons. However due changing farming practises and pollution the otter population declined dramatically in in the middle of the century. Despite hunters claims to the contrary, hunting of the otter continued during the 50's nand 60's with their own figures claiming 1058 kills between 1958 and 1963. Hunters themselves opposed the cessation of otter hunting. It is not illegal to hunt otters, merely to kill them as was passed into law in 1978. However, this has not protected the otter population.The Nature Conservancy Council has said: `Minkhunting if practised on rivers which also hold otters, must cause considerable disturbance'. Also there is nothing to stop the hounds from actually chasing an otter instead of a mink. Philip Wayre of the Otter Trust is convinced that minkhunting is detrimental to the survival of the otter. [source: LACS] Over the last few years the otter has made a good come back and the government is making efforts in conjunction with the water companies to prevent them going into decline again. [BBC & Times, 8th June 98] 4.4 Staghunting --------------- Staghunting has recently become very controversial over the release of the Bateson report (see seperate section), but dear are infact one of the least hunted animals in this country. It mostly occurs in the West Country with the Devon and Somerset, Quantock and Tiverton Staghounds. The New Forest Buckhounds have closed. The hunting season is from August to April, with the type of deer hunted, hinds, stags, bucks, depending on the month. Roe bucks are also hunted in the south west. Also as a result of the Bateson report, the Forestry Commission has banned staghunting on its land. More experienced hounds are used to seperate a stag deemed suitable for hunting from a herd. This can take a while and the whole herd is disturbed. Once it has been seperated the rest of the pack are set onto it and the chase ensues. Though the hounds may not stay with this one deer for the entire day. The hounds main quality is stamina rather than speed so that the hunt will last most of he day. A hunt on a particular stag can last from three to eight hours before the hounds catch up with it. If the hounds are a distance away from the hunt when they catch up with the deer then they will bring it down, ripping it with their jaws. Hounds are often killed from blows from the antlers. The normal mode of death is with a shot to the head but video footage shows that this is not always clean. One hunt took four shots over six minutes and eventually had to drown the stag. This hunt was banned from hunting for five weeks as a result. Hind hunting is usually done when the hind is pregant or with a dependant calf, so as a result more are killed in a day. Those that survive have depleted resources to face the winter with. The hind is also forced to abandon her calf but will go back to urge it on. If the calf is not also killed by hounds then it can die of starvation, hypothermia or myopathy. Victems of the latter causes are rarely counted. The proponents of deer hunting say that the herds need to be controlled as they have no natural predators and as a result grow in number until they start denuding their habitat. However, this is because the natural preditors such as wolves have been taken away. This is no reason for the prolonged cruelty, as the Bateson report shows,and chase to exhaustion that is staghunting. Plus there is already culling of the dear by shooting which account for more deaths than the hunts put together, dispite Janet George's claim `all the deer in the Quantocks will disappear because there will be no proper management and they will be shot as pests.' Much deer hunting occurs on public land. When the National Trust banned it on their land a massacre was threatened by farmers and supporters, signs of which have already appeared. In the run up to the reading of Foster's bill on 28 Nov claims were made that up to 80 (other accounts put it at 36) stags were killed in protest, one photo showing 50 heads alone. However, reports in the Guardian and Daily Mail [both 26 Nov 1997] said it was a setup. This is simply spiteful blackmail whether true or not. It was also condemned by the British Assosiation for Shooting and Conservation. [sources: LACS; Times; Daily Telegraph 3 Oct 1997, 26 Nov 1997; Independant 26 Nov 1997] 4.5 Shooting ------------ What can be shot? Well anything that moves. Not as big an issue in the public eye or on u.p.a as hunting with hounds dispite being responsible for more deaths. It is an issue for sabs and animal rights activists who campaign against it and sab shoots. The biggest day of the year is the `Glorious Twelfth' in August which marks the opening of the grouse season. Shooting is for the most part unregulated and uses rifles and shot guns, though there are those who like to use bow and arrows, believing that it gets them closer to nature (though illegal in the UK). All one need is a license to hold a gun. There are numerous clubs and organised shooting meets, whether it is farmers going out to shoot percieved pests or buisness executives who believe it to be fun. It is over the latter, with drunk buisnessmen being handed shotguns that a boycot has been called by the National Anti-Hunt Campaign against Waitrose. Shooting is not a quick kill; the prey is moving and often what happens is that the victem is brought down wounded. Some shoots use people or dogs to collect the animals but this may take time before the wounded is killed properly. It is claimed the wounded bird is killed once it is brought back by the dog, but this assumes every bird is found and doesnt take into acount the welfare issue of a conscious and wounded bird in the mouth of a dog. Often the wounded animals are not gathered and left to die or be killed by other animals. The best known form of shooting is the grouse and pheasant shoots, and these are even marketed as tourist attractions. These normally occur on the moors or large estates with people paying for the pleasure. For their convenience, the land is beaten so that the birds are disturbed and forced into the air where they can be picked off. These estates are run by gamekeeper whose main purpose is to ensure that there is good shooting. Shooters claim that they are responsible for important conservation, but this belies the fact that preditors are ruthlessly eliminated from the land as is any animal that may get in the way. An example of this is the persecution of hen-harriers on the grouse moors [Nature, Oct 97], though the Joint Raptor Study has shown that killing them made no difference to the long term decline in red grouse numbers as what has has been habitat loss and degradation [Country Life Nov 97]. If they really cared about conservation the landowners would take the more sensible route of cutting back on sheep grazing, as when the harriers do affect the number of grouse it is only in the areas heavily grazed by sheep. [Langholm report, commissioned by the RSPB and Game Conservancy Trust among others]. The animal rights approach to shooting for sport is that it is total pointless and unnecessary. The conservation claims are mostly bogus and those that wish to blow things out of the sky should use clay pidgeon shooting. 4.5.1 Letter from an Ex-Shooter ------------------------------- >From Let Fly! - letters page of 'Bird Watching' April 1998. HANGING UP HIS GUNS I don't write this letter in search of praise, condemnation or judgement: I merely want to make public my decision to give up live quarry shooting. With the current season just ended, I found my personal justification for killing live creatures inexcusable and I have now sold my shotgun. In justifying themselves, shooters often argue 'The bird presents itself as a sporting and testing shot', or 'It's vermin'. What utter guff - birds do not ask to be peppered with shot, and the only people who think birds are vermin are farmers who are not content with their own blatent rape of the countryside. While Pheasant rearing does protect areas of woodland for other forms of wildlife, the industry destroys, legally and illegally, far more than it saves. From my own experience, I know that when a party of six guns has shot 500 birds over a weekend, the 'harvested' birds don't always end up on the table: they are more likely to be incinerated, buried or dumped. Now, armed with a telescope, I've discovered an appreciation of the countryside's diversity and beauty I never knew existed, and it was your magazine's excellent way of presenting birds in such exciting and informative ways that was a major factor in my decision to give up shooting. Birdwatching gives me a far greater sense of freedom and release than anything else I've ever known. ADRIAN SMITH, Nantwich, Cheshire. 4.6 Fishing ----------- There is some debate about whether fishing is a bloodsport or not. Animal rights activist would say so, as do the BFSS. Over the last few years the BFSS have been attempting to woo the anglers in order to bloster their numbers, but on the whole the anglers have backed away, not wishing to be tarnished with the same brush as foxhunters. The BFSS have been claiming that once hunting is banned then fishing will be nexted. Campaigns by CAA and the Shark Protection League are already going, but the fact remains that two thirds of the people in this country do not see anything wrong with fishing (though animal rights activists on the whole will). The main reason for this is that the fish is not a mammal and the belief that they dont feel pain. There has been little research into the latter, among which is the Medway report for the RSPCA, but there are indications that the do detect pain though whether they felt pain wasnt ascertained. Also to note is that the Home Office considers fish to be covered by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act when there is an experiement being carried out on them. The HSA's article on fishing and why it is an animal rights issue is contained in the appendix. 4.7 Badgers ----------- Thanks to Pam Mynott for this. 4.7.1 Badger and the Law in Britain ------------------------------------- Badgers are the only British animals that are protected by law, not because they are endangered, but because they are subjected to cruelty, i.e. badger baiting and badger digging. Badger baiting was made illegal in 1835. Various acts starting with Badger Act (1973) were combined in 1992 into a single act - The Protection of Badgers Act (1992). The following are illegal 1) To kill, injure or take a badger, or to try to do so. 2) To dig for a badger 3) To possess a dead badger or part of one if the badger was taken illegally. To offer to sell or to hold a live badger. 4) To intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to a badger sett, to cause a dog to enter a sett or to disturb a badger while it is occupying a badger sett. A badger sett is defined as 'any structure or place which displays signs indicating current use by a badger.' 4.7.2 Badger Baiting And Badger Digging ----------------------------------------- These so-called 'sports' seem to be inextricably linked with fox-hunting. Virtually all the recently convicted badger diggers have had close links with the BFSS. A terrier wearing a locating collar is put into the badger sett. Its job is to hold the badger in one place while the terrier-men dig down to where the badger is. Badger tongs are used to grab the badger by its neck and lift it out. If the badger is lucky it is then killed on the spot, but more often the terriers are set onto it. The badger may have its legs broken or its bottom jaw cut away, so that it cannot injure the dogs too much. If the dogs are injured they cannot be taken to a vet. because the typical wounds inflicted by badgers would be recognized. Occasionally the badger is put into a sack alive and taken to a secret location to be set on by a whole series of terriers in a baiting pit. 4.7.3 Badgers and Bovine TB --------------------------- Some parts of the South-west and Wales still have a problem with TB in cattle. Some of the badgers in these areas also have bovine TB and there is circumstantial evidence that the two are linked. It is not known how badgers might give TB to cattle. The recent Krebs report recommends that a scientific experiment is carried out in the TB hot spot areas to find out whether killing badgers will stop TB in cattle. This experiment will mean that 10,000 badgers will be killed over the next 5 years. Most of these badgers will be healthy and free of TB. Some will be sows with dependent cubs who will then starve slowly to death. There is virtually no health risk to humans from bovine TB. 4.7.4 The National Federation of Badger Groups ---------------------------------------------- This is the umbrella organization for local badger protection groups in the U.K. It provides a national forum for sharing information and ideas, and it campaigns nationally on issues that affect badgers. There are over 70 member groups and it has a paid Badger Conservation Officer. Its address is:- 2, Cloisters Business Centre, Battersea Park Road, LONDON, SW8 4BG. 4.7.5 Hunters Employees and Badger Baiting ------------------------------------------ Several hunt employees have been convicted for involvement in badger baiting and it is generally suspected by anti hunt activists that there is a closer connection between badger baiting and hunting that is generally let on. Here is a list of hunters who have been found guilty of badger digging. 1983 A man who admitted being a member of Cumbrian fell packs was fined £80 for badger digging. The same man was jailed for three months in 1989 for dog-fighting offences. 1984 The earth stopper of the Quorn hunt was fined £1,000 for badger digging offences. 1991 The huntsman of the Isle of Wight fox hounds was fined £500 for badger digging offences. 1991 The huntsman of the Essex and Suffolk fox hounds was fined £500 for badger digging offences. 1992 The kennelman of the Enfield Chase fox hounds was convicted of illegally interfering with a badger sett. 1994 A kennelman of the Wynnstay fox hounds was jailed for sixmonths for badger digging offences. 1996 A terrierman of the York & Ainsty (South) fox hounds was fined £750 for digging badger sett. 1997 The terrierman of the South Nottingham fox hounds was convicted of digging for badgers. In 1997, a former Representative of the Fell & Moorland Working Terrier Club was gaoled for four months and banned for keeping all animals for five years for being in possession (including illegally transporting) of a live pregnant badger. The RSPCA believe the badger was to be used for baiting. Files also show several convictions for badger offences where those found guilty have previously held positions of authority within the Fell & Moorland Working terrier Club. Their 1996 list of "approved Representatives even includes several people who have been found guilty of badger offences in the past. "...it is my belief that - unwillingly and most unfortunately - legal hunting's darkest side is that it gives encouragement to the men who indulge in such evil practices as badger-baiting, cock-fighting, the digging of fox cubs, dog-fighting, indiscrirniniate shooting and all sorts of harassment of animals in the name of sport." JNP Watson - ex Master of Beagles who has hunted with 267 hunts around the world. Some good website for badgers are Brockwatch http://www.geocities.com/~brockwatch/ Harrisons' Badger Information Page http://www.personal.u-net.com/badrise/bad.htm Forest of Dean Badger Patrol http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David_J_Bannister/FODBP.htm South Yorkshire badger group (good for facts on badger baiting) http://www.shu.ac.uk/community/badger_group/index.html 4.8 Cockfighting ------------------ Like badger baiting, this involves betting money on fighting animals, in this case two cockrells normally armed with spurs in a fight to the death. Highly secretive since being outlawed it still goes on, normally in farm barns. How popular it is, is not known. 1986 The kennel huntsman of the Wheatland fox hunt and several supporters were heavily fined after being convicted of cock fighting offences following a raid by police and RSPCA on hunt kennels. 4.9 Cormorants -------------- Cormorants were once considered an endangered species with only 5000 pairs in 1979, which has now risen to more than 100,000. In 1997 its status as an endangered species was lifted but it is still illegal to kil them . Much of the controversy surrounding cormorants is due to a call from fishermen for a cull as inland cormorant have being raiding fish farms and rivers, depleting stock. The anglers claim that they are doing ecological damage, but this is because they want to kill the fish instead. On fish farms it is simple enough to put up protective coverings and nets. Both Anglican Water Authority and Grantham council successfully deflected the problem by simply changing their fish stocking policy to later in the year. This has also proved effective in the US. A former editor of the Angling Times, Keith Higginsbottom, ran an article at the end of 1996 showing a masked man will the cormorants he had killed, and encouraged others to do the same. He was charged but not found guilt of incitement. The BFSS support the campaign to change the law to remove the protected status of cormorants, and the Angling Times continue to run their campaign. [sources: Daily Telegraph, 7 Nov 97] In 1995 the government stance was that there was no scientific evidence to support a cull. The RSPB have said that the cormorant was being made a scapegoat for other factors affecting fish stock, citing Loch Leven trout fishery where a shoot of a large number of cormorants did not resulted in increased catches. A 1994 study by the National Rivers Authority concluded that fish eating birds were unlikely to be causing serious damage at the freshwater fisheries though they were affecting the small enclosed fish farms. They also said that much of the evidence is ancedotal or circumstancial. From an animal rights point of view this whole issue is about the anglers wanting to catch the fish the cormorants need for their food. Note there are two types of cormorant; the continental one which is the subject of the controvery and the coast one which is unaffected. [sources: Paul Kennedy, various newspapers, RSPCA Wildlife magazine]